In this episode I break down the highlights of the disastrous Mueller hearing.
News Picks:The Joseph Mifsud story explodes.
Must read piece about the flimsy Mueller report and their use of ridiculous footnotes.
Another liberal myth debunked! Mueller asked for clarification.
This Democrat congresswoman’s tweet entirely exposed her as a hypocrite.
The Democrats are upset that Mueller won’t speak outside of the report.
Major fact-check on AOC.
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation, given the questions that you have just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in volume one, page seven?
We found insufficient evidence of The President's culpability.
So that would be a yes.
I'm pardon?
That would be a yes.
Yes.
Thank you.
Isn't it true the evidence did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the President otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official?
Volume 2, page 76.
Correct?
I'll leave the answer to our report.
So it was a yes.
Exonerated again.
Hey!
What is this, exoneration number 5,426?
Again!
Ladies and gentlemen, we will be running video on this, I think, for a long time.
This Mueller hearing is imploding on the Democrats in absolutely glorious fashion.
Listen, with all due respect to Bob Mueller and his service to the country, my gosh, has there ever been a guy less prepared than this?
Folks, I've got a ton of video for you today.
Here's what I'm going to do for you.
Joe and I, by the way, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
We must get that in.
Strap yourself in.
It's going to be a Yes, big time.
And I want to just say thank you to you and Paula for, I have been sending them voluminous amounts of, I mean it, you guys have been really working hard.
Thanks.
And thank you to the audience.
Here's what I'm going to do for tuning in today.
Here's what I'm going to do in today's show, a little bit of tomorrow's show, and I promise I will get the news of the week too with the remaining three shows of the week.
There's budget stuff, there's other things going on too.
I am going to distill down for you what's going to be six hours of Mueller testimony into about 10 or 15 takeaways.
And I'm telling you, and listen, I'm a conservative.
I'm not pretending to be nonpartisan.
I'm telling you with absolute certainty.
This thus far has been an apocalyptic disaster for the Democrats.
If something changes in the afternoon session, I am going to record some components of tomorrow's show tonight.
This has been a disaster.
Yeah.
Okay, let's get right to it.
You saw video number one, Doug Collins nailing Mueller to the wall on this, exonerating the president again.
For the umpteenth time.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Law Shield.
Listen, do not carry a firearm naked.
By I mean naked, I don't mean without clothes on.
You gotta have the protections of Law Shield.
Ladies and gentlemen...
Wow, excuse me.
If you are forced, God forbid, to use a firearm in a self-defense scenario, defending yourself or your family, and you don't have the law shield, legal protections, the advice law shield can provide, and their strategy guide on what to do, God forbid something like this happens to you, you are carrying your firearm naked.
Nobody wakes up thinking today will be the day they're going to be pushed into a corner and forced to use their firearm in self-defense.
But God forbid, what if it is?
This was the case for a 64-year-old New York man who fatally shot two prowlers, this is a true story, going through his home.
It was the second time they hit this poor guy's house.
But that's not why this story is crazy.
What's crazy is that after killing the suspects, the homeowner, yes, the homeowner was arrested because the firearm which saved his life Originally belonged to his dead father, and he failed to register it upon inheriting it.
This is ridiculous.
He was arrested and charged with felony possession of an illegal handgun.
Thankfully, he's out on bail, but his legal issues aren't over yet, possibly costing him thousands, more likely tens of thousands.
Stories like this are exactly why I am a proud member of U.S.
Law Shield.
For less than $11 per month, you not only have immediate 24-7, 365 access to an attorney, but you won't pay a penny in attorney fees if this nightmare ever happens to you.
Do not carry a firearm naked, folks.
Go to uslawshield.com and a special gift for my listeners.
Get their five free Defender Reports worth $100, absolutely free.
It's a $100 value, absolutely free.
You'll be amazed at how much useful information is inside.
Given the choice, I feel better knowing that U.S.
Law Shield has my back.
Join me in the fight to protecting your right to keep and bear arms.
USLawShield.com slash Dan.
All right, let's go.
Okay, this is a video, this second one.
That, of course, the opening video is Doug Collins exonerating, or Bob Mueller answering Doug Collins' question, exonerating Donald Trump again, which is utterly absurd.
We're going through this fiasco.
Now, why are we doing this?
What's going on here?
I gave an interview on WMAL this morning, radio station in Washington DC, and I said, I gave you the behind the scenes.
A lot of you after watching that abomination this morning, Mueller completely collapsed under questioning, couldn't answer basic questions, Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan absolutely shredded him.
You're probably wondering why the Democrats and the hapless Jerry Nadler did this, and they're clearly now regretting it.
Folks, here's the Inside Baseball.
You've probably heard this on TV a little bit, but I'm getting this from some quality sources.
The Democrats were under the assumption here that because most Americans did not have time to read the 400-page Mueller report, otherwise known as the Mueller op-ed, because it's not what's in the report, it's what's not in the report that matters, Joe.
Right.
The line amongst the Democrats were, well, if they don't read the book, we're going to give them the movie.
You dig?
Yeah!
The Democrats were under the impression that since nobody read the report, or large swaths of America didn't read the report, which has some unflattering information nonetheless, painted in the most unflattering light, because that's what Mueller was there to do, to hurt the President, Joe, that if they put this impeccable witness, Bob Mueller, up there, and it looked like a Nixon-Watergate hearing, that this would convince America, finally, that America needed to be impeached.
Red flag under the hood for review, folks.
This is not working out as planned.
If Woody would have went straight to the police, none of this would have ever happened.
Mueller has absolutely, oh, he's collapsed completely.
Not only has he collapsed, he has now, Joe, changed his story for the third time on the OLC guidelines.
This is the one clip I'm going to play.
Yeah, this is the third time now.
And by the way, people have been reminding me, holding 10 yards, it's not 50, it's 10 yards offense.
Replay first down, okay?
It is, it's not 50, thank you.
I haven't watched the NFL in a while, so I'm losing my, I'm not so sharp anymore on that, so I'm getting a little soft on my NFL stuff.
Folks, here's the backstory to the clip I'm about to play you of Barr's testimony a while ago, because it's going to matter.
Bob Mueller now in the testimony today said again, changing his story for the third time, that the reason the report is written the way it was and the president wasn't indicted was because of Office of Legal Counsel guidelines indicating you can't indict a sitting president.
Joe, I'm going to need you as the ombudsman here.
Here's what's really going on.
Bob Mueller hates the president, so does Bob Mueller's team of anti-Trump Democrats.
They can't stand the president.
They found a non-prosecutable case of obstruction and they found collusion to be a complete fairy tale.
In other words, there was no prosecutable crimes and there was no predicate crime at all.
Copy.
Mueller did not want to write a report completely entirely making the president look like the victim of a witch hunt.
So what he did is he fabricated a set of narratives in part two on obstruction, which painted the president out to obstruct an investigation he never obstructed.
Hopefully I'll get to this Wall Street Journal piece later about this.
All right.
If you follow me here.
So he writes this story, but he leaves out facts that indicate the president's entirely innocent of obstructing the case because the case wasn't obstructed.
Now, because he knows that obstruction case he puts together in part two is a joke and will be laughed out of court if he ever moves forward with it, Mueller can't prosecute a non-prosecutable case.
He doesn't want to be embarrassed.
Imagine he goes to court and loses badly to the president.
So what does he do?
He writes this story and says, well, I would have prosecuted him, but Joe, wink and a nod.
The Office of Legal Counsel has a longstanding opinion that says we can't indict a sitting president.
That's the only reason.
What's the problem?
You tracking?
Everybody following me?
You dig?
Yeah, yeah.
I would have hit him.
I would have prosecuted Joe for felonious mopery.
But the problem is, the Office of Legal Counsel says you can't prosecute the best podcast producer in the business on felonious mopery charges.
You can't do it.
And that's the only reason I didn't prosecute Joe.
That's not what happened.
Mueller did not move forward with an indictment on obstruction because he had no case.
But he couldn't say that because it would make Trump look like the victim of a second conspiracy theory.
What's the problem here, folks?
The problem is Bill Barr, the Attorney General, was already hip to this scam and said to Bob Mueller at one point, hey, you know, you need to make a decision on this, Bob, this obstruction thing.
If you don't, we will.
And I want to be sure, I want to be crystal clear, Bob, You're not making this decision because of the OLC guidelines, right?
Here's Bill Barr testifying to the fact that Mueller gave him a completely different answer.
Play the cut.
Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction.
He said that in the future, the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.
We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision.
And when we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.
This is great!
This is classic!
Follow me here.
Mueller has changed his story three times.
He came out after his report was issued, and he seemed to insinuate in his speech in that ridiculous press conference that the OLC guidelines stopped him from indicting the president.
Otherwise, I would have done it.
Except he told Bill Barr and three witnesses, three times, who all took notes on it, that that was not the reason he wasn't indicting the president.
He then comes back again today and changes his story again and says, no, no, I would have indicted him if it weren't for the OLC guys.
Do you understand this guy has no credibility?
Folks, he has zero, zero credibility.
None.
Zero.
He has no credibility.
It's over.
There are multiple witnesses, career officials in the DOJ who already heard Bob Mueller say the exact opposite.
Your liberal friends and their media bootlicking coward hack buddies can say all they want that, oh, I would have exonerated the president except the OLC guidelines, or I would have indicted the president, OLC guidelines, stop me.
That is not what Mueller said.
That's a, give me a double Mutley.
We haven't had a Mutley in a while.
Thank you.
It's a double Mutley.
He is lying.
This guy's credibility, Mueller, is over.
He's changed his story again.
Is he... Folks, I'm not... Listen, I want to be respectful of the man's service to the country, but I'm... This is a serious question.
And I don't mean this to... Really, I want to be very careful here.
Is he... Is he not remembering what he said?
Is he... Because there are multiple witnesses to this.
Is he not remembering that after the press conference, Bill Barr issued a memo saying that the OLC did not stop them from issuing charges and that Bob Mueller said he didn't dispute the memo?
Folks, I mean, again, I'm trying to be respectful, unlike Mueller was to the President.
Is he just not remembering this?
He keeps changing his story!
And the idiots in the media keep falling for it!
Now, mark my words, I have a prediction.
And again, we're gonna record some content tonight.
These next two shows are gonna be can't miss.
I'm gonna make a prediction that another memo will be issued by the Attorney General's office today, saying that Mueller's not telling the truth about the OLC guidelines, and Mueller will then say, no, the memo's right.
Okay, dude, whatever.
I don't even know what to tell you anymore.
This is really unbelievable.
This guy cannot keep his story straight.
Alright, let's get back to this hearing.
Folks, I'm telling you, this is a cosmic, apocalyptic, Infinity Wars-like embarrassment for the Democrats.
Jerry Nadler should lose his gavel tonight after this hearing.
This has been an embarrassment.
An embarrassment.
Getting back to some video.
Here's Mueller again, entirely, completely decimating his credibility.
Now let me set up this clip of Doug Collins, who did a masterful job.
Thank you, Doug.
What a, him, Jim Jordan, what an awesome piece of work.
Chalbot, we'll get to more later.
I haven't even started yet.
As Al Pacino said, we're just getting warmed up.
Yeah.
In Mueller's report, I had to explain this to Paula this morning because she loved this clip too.
I'm like, here's what he did here.
In Mueller's report, he clearly states in the report in writing, which he says he's not going to, remember Mueller said, I'm not going to testify to anything outside the report in this hearing.
Really?
In his report, he clearly states that collusion is synonymous with conspiracy.
Joe, again, ombudsman hat on.
Please, I need to get you an ombudsman hat.
Maybe I'll get you the referee hat from our buddy.
Next time you come down, although I've already wore it on my head, I don't know if you're a germaphobe or anything.
Nah, we're quite here.
I need you to put your hat on.
Okay, cool.
Here's where we're going with this.
In the report, Bob Mueller understands clearly that the term collusion is not a legal term.
But Dan, you just said in the report he says collusion is synonymous with conspiracy, and conspiracy is a legal term.
Those two things can't be equal, right?
If collusion is just a colloquial term that's not a legal term, why would you say in your report that it's the same thing as conspiracy?
Think about it, folks.
Why would Mueller write that in his report?
Because Mueller doesn't have any evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
So what he wants to do in his report is show a pattern of contacts with Russians.
Entirely legal.
Entirely legal.
No illegality at all.
And he wants to infer from those meetings with these Russians that they must have colluded.
Colluded, again, not a legal term, Joe.
It means whatever Democrats think it means.
Meetings, collusion.
You get what I'm saying?
Yeah.
So what Mueller does in his report is he's trying to get into the American psyche this idea that collusion and conspiracy are the same thing.
So when you hear about these meetings, Donald Trump may have committed a crime even though we had to exonerate him.
That's why he's creating this relative equation here.
Collusion equals conspiracy.
Yes.
Collins is smart.
Collins then asks him this, where Mueller changes his story about what collusion means.
On page 180 of volume one of your report, you wrote, as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute 18 U.S.C. 371.
You said at your May 29th press conference and here today, you choose your words carefully.
Are you sitting here today testifying something different than what your report states?
Well, what I'm asking is if you can give me the citation, I can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is accurate.
Okay, let me just be clarified.
You stated that you would stay within the report.
I just stated your report back to you.
And you said that collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms.
That was your answer was no.
That's correct.
In that, page 180 of volume one of your report, it says, as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in general conspiracy statute 18 U.S.C.
371.
Now you said you chose your words carefully.
Are you contradicting your report right now?
Not when I read it.
So you would change your answer to yes then?
No.
The, uh, if you look at the language... I'm reading your report, sir.
It's a yes or no answer.
Page 180.
Page 180, volume 1.
This was from your report.
Correct.
And I leave it with the report.
So the report says, yes, they are synonymous.
Hopefully for finally, out of your own report, we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy.
One last question as we're going through.
Did you ever look into other countries investigated in the Russians' interference into our election?
Were other countries investigated or found knowledge that they had interference in our election?
I'm not going to discuss other matters.
Right?
Dude!
Right?
This is, again, the Rob Schneider YouTube classic comedy piece about the thousand ways or whatever to say dude.
You know, there's a serial killer around the corner, you think he's in here, you're like, dude?
You're confused about what your friend says?
Dude!
You know, your buddy shows up after not seeing you for a while?
Dude!
This is one of those, I'm utterly confused about what just happened.
Dude, what was that?
This guy is an entirely not credible witness.
He just changed his story.
In the Mueller op-ed, known as the Mueller Report, he conflates collusion with conspiracy to give Americans the impression that there was a crime, even though he said there wasn't, because the Democrats use the term collusion.
But now when questioned under oath and sworn in and asked if collusion is conspiracy, he's like, it's not conspiracy.
Doug Collins says, I'm just reading from your report.
You said the exact opposite.
I'm reading from the report.
Your report.
Muller's sitting there like, where's the non-talk button?
Where's the mute button?
He doesn't know what to say.
Why?
Because Muller didn't write the report.
People who hate Trump wrote the report.
Zebley, Jeannie Rhee, Andy Weissman.
And they wrote the report like an op-ed piece to nail the Trump team for crimes that didn't happen and Trump, the Trump and his team didn't commit.
Please tell me you get that.
We get that.
Collusion equal conspiracy and the report to nail him to the wall so the Democrats could continue to charge Trump with collusion, even though it's not a crime.
Yet the minute he's questioned on the road, if they're the same thing, he totally changes his answer.
He is not a credible witness.
I am sorry.
I am sorry to deflate your liberal balloons here, folks, but this has been an apocalyptic level disaster for you.
And Joe, the uncertainty and the stumbling and the bumbling.
It's... I mean, what is going on?
Can you answer the question?
I mean, it's almost sad, dude.
You know what?
I hate to say that.
It is, Joe.
It is.
Because I don't have any... I know I get upset, but I really don't have personal animus towards any of the players in this.
I have a lot of professional animus.
I get upset, but the guy did serve the country.
And I get that.
He served the country.
I get that.
I understand.
But folks, this is a serious thing here.
This is the special counsel investigator, the most significant counterintelligence investigation of our time, and he can't... Joe's nailed it.
It is sad to watch.
It is!
This is a disgrace.
Why did the Democrats do this to this guy?
You thought this is the movie you wanted?
The Democrats didn't, uh... You know, Democrats, they didn't read the book, but they'll see the movie.
I don't think this is the... I don't think this is the movie you wanted.
No.
I'm reasonably confident.
You know, I remember taking a theater class in college, and Queens College guy Robert Capsis was the professor, saying how people were scared-less.
When they went to go see the movie Arachnophobia, because they thought the movie was a comedy, and it was a pretty scary movie about spiders.
They went in with a different expectation, and that's why they were scared.
The same phenomenon happened on Halloween.
The original Halloween, where people weren't sure what the movie was about until Michael Meyer... Folks, the Democrats went into this thinking this was going to be a touchdown, and what they got was negative two, a safety in the end zone.
There it is.
This has been a disaster.
Mueller is entirely, completely unprepared.
Folks, I'm not done.
It gets, trust me, it gets worse.
John Ratcliffe absolutely fillets, fillets Mueller in the next one.
Okay, got to pay for the show.
We have great advertisers, folks.
Today's show also brought to you by, Paula loves this, my favorite product out there.
Duke Cannon!
Duke!
Like the Duke of Earl!
Duke Cannon!
Can a bar of soap be patriotic?
You're damn right.
This is the bar of soap.
It is the big brick of soap campfire.
Well, look at this.
The campfire edition.
That's a bar of soap.
That's not a brick.
That's not a jet engine.
That's a bar of soap for men.
For men!
Look at the side of it.
I mean, you want to read that?
Check that out.
That's what it says.
That's why I love Duke Cannon soap.
Bigger than common bar soaps.
Not from France.
Not for clowns.
Ducanon.
You want to smell like a man?
You want to smell like a man?
Yeah.
You go to Ducanon and you get, look at this solid cologne.
Look at it.
You see his little divot missing?
Why?
Because I used it on date night Saturday night.
Awesome.
Awesome.
Duke!
Duke Cannon!
Duke Cannon!
You want to smell it?
Paula, how much do you love this smell?
Do you love it?
Oh, yes.
Little Patron?
Some Duke Cannon?
Saturday nights have been epic!
Smell like a man!
Duke Cannon's superior quality grooming goods for hardworking men are tested by soldiers, not boy bands!
Duke Cannon partners with active duty military to develop new ideas and review products.
Anything that doesn't meet the high standards of soldiers doesn't happen.
Duke Cannon gives back to the country too.
A portion of their proceeds, this is solid, directly supports veteran causes.
Duke Cannon sells basically everything you need And nothing you don't.
Soap, news anchor pomade, beer wash, solid cologne that smells like manhood.
I love this stuff.
I'm not kidding.
This is my second.
Ducat and I need more.
Send more or Date Night is going to go downhill fast.
Solid cologne's a foolproof way to smell good on the go.
Cologne bomb that's TSA friendly doesn't make you smell like you were attacked by the mall perfume lady.
Ladies and gentlemen, I love Duke Cannon Products.
This is seriously one of my favorite sponsors.
I look forward to Saturday nights like you have no idea.
Visit Duke!
D-U-K-E.
Duke Cannon.
C-A-N-N-O-N.com right now and get 15% off your first order with promo code Bongino.
Free shipping on orders over $35.
Don't make the mistake of not doing this.
Go to dukecannon.com right now and get 15% off with promo code Bongino.
Gosh, do I love Duke Cannon.
My favorite.
Sometimes the reads are better than the actual show.
I know you love that one.
Oh, we get more feedback because I'm not making it up.
Gosh, do we love date night.
Little Patron.
Little Ducat.
And all right, back to the show.
So Johnny Ratcliffe knocks it out of the park.
Republican member from Texas.
Republican member from Texas, excuse me, John Ratcliffe, absolutely destroys Mueller in this clip.
Let me set it up for you as I've done with these prior clips.
Radcliffe is puzzled in this clip why Bob Mueller is setting a new standard of justice.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's bizarre that Mueller's report, his standard for justice is, I am not going to exonerate Trump on obstruction, but I don't have evidence to prosecute a case.
Folks, think about how innocent until proven guilty gets thrown out if that is the new standard.
If the police department were to put out a press release saying that they thought Joe Armacost robbed a bank, they're not going to prosecute him for robbing the bank, they don't have enough evidence to prosecute him for robbing a bank, and therefore they think Joe may have robbed the bank but they're not going to prosecute Joe for robbing a bank.
What do you think would happen to that police department?
The answer, folks, is they would be sued into oblivion by any entrepreneurial lawyer who would bankrupt that local city or town that did that.
Why?
Because we don't put out derogatory information in law enforcement about people we don't charge.
Ladies and gentlemen, why is that?
This is what you're not getting in the mainstream media.
Again, having been a federal agent and a cop, I'm going to explain to you why.
Because a lot of times, ladies and gentlemen, when you're investigating cases, facts emerge that may make people look guilty.
Those people may not have in fact committed a crime.
They may have been unwittings, meaning they didn't know they were involved in some kind of a conspiracy.
They may have been present at a crime scene, had no involvement at all.
Or, they may have been under duress themselves when they were forced to do things like in a hostage situation or something like that.
There are multiple reasons why a fact pattern would make someone look guilty when in fact they weren't.
I can't use this example enough.
If I have evidence Joe came home on a Tuesday with a bag of money and I also have evidence that Joe was in a bank.
This is a fact pattern.
And I also have a fact pattern indicating the bank Joe was in was robbed.
And I put that out in a report and I don't charge Joe.
Why would I not charge Joe?
Because we have a videotape of someone else robbing the bank and Joe was just making a deposit for his business.
Yeah.
What the Democrats are conflating, Joe, again, ombudsman hat on, is they're conflating a fact pattern and evidence of a crime.
Because Joe fits a fact pattern, was in the bank, withdrew money, does not mean it's evidence Joe committed the crime.
We have evidence someone else did it.
If I leave that evidence out that someone else did it, that exonerates Trump, out of my report, and I go on the media and say, well, I have a series of facts indicating Joe may have committed a crime, we're not gonna charge him, you would be sued to kingdom come.
You bet, baby.
That is why, thank you, prosecutors do not do this.
John Ratcliffe, who was a United States attorney and prosecutor for the government, in this clip absolutely nails Mueller to the wall for his ridiculous not not guilty standard in his report.
Check this out.
Now in explaining that special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report on the bottom of page two of volume two The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.
That the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Now, I read that correctly?
Yes.
All right.
Now, your report, and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles.
So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
Can you repeat the last part of that question?
Yeah.
Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
Where does that language come from, Director?
Where is the DOJ policy that says that?
Let me make it easier.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?
I cannot, but this is a unique situation.
Okay, well, time is short.
I've got five minutes.
Let's just leave it at you can't find it because I'll tell you why.
It doesn't exist.
Oh man.
You know, Joe, your responses today have been spot on and you're right.
This is sad, folks.
I mean, this really is.
This is a man who had a really, I'm not going to say an impeccable reputation.
Mueller's been involved in some real fiascos with the FBI, so let's not be too laudatory.
But a guy who, I guess, thanks to his service to the country, had a decent reputation.
It's over.
Absolutely.
He can't answer any question.
Radcliffe just absolutely shreds, fillets his credibility here.
Couple highlights from that clip, what the takeaways are and why this matters.
Not not guilty is not a standard.
As I just laid out, no need to go over that again.
Thank you.
Fact patterns do not mean evidence of a crime.
That's why we don't do this.
Second takeaway.
DOJ policy, Department of Justice, for the liberals who don't understand acronyms, is crystal clear that you do not issue derogatory information about American citizens if you are not going to prosecute them for a crime.
It is crystal clear.
Ratcliffe says to him, is there any other person that you would have done this with?
Because can you cite to me DOJ policy that says not not guilty or you're not going to exonerate him?
Can you cite where that DOJ policy is?
Of course he can't because Mueller made it up for Donald Trump specifically now.
Mueller's attempt, pathetic attempt at an answer, is key, folks.
And I'm going to knock and slam this thing down in two seconds flat.
He says, well, this was a unique situation.
No, no, it isn't.
Ten yards, holding Bob Mueller, repeat first down.
Not true.
Whoa.
Joe, what has been the Democrats party line throughout this entire thing?
That this is not a unique situation.
Nobody is above the law.
The law treats everybody equally.
No, it doesn't!
Oh, I see.
It doesn't treat everybody equally.
DOJ policy, the law, their regulations, Promulgated and accepted by the executive branch are clear as day that you don't crap all over American citizens and then not charge them with a crime.
You... You... No, it's not unique.
That has not been your point.
Your point has been the opposite.
Everybody's treated fairly under the law.
Well, we're gonna treat Donald Trump differently because it's unique.
Why is it unique?
He's an American citizen.
So him you get to crap on.
That is bullshit!
And you know it!
That is total BS!
If there's one takeaway from this today thus far, there have been some good ones, this is the clip that you should nail your liberal friends on.
What is it?
Is Donald Trump's case unique and he's not subjected to the Constitution or any of the civil liberties we all enjoy?
Or is everybody equal under the law?
What is it?
Because that's not what Mueller just said!
Yes, yes.
Self-praise stinks, but we just nailed his caboose to the wall on that one.
Nailed him.
Oh, this is a unique situation.
No, no.
The Constitution, ladies and gentlemen, does not have unique situations for American citizens, okay?
It provides a process for impeaching a president.
It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that a president can't be indicted.
That's an OLC interpretation, which clearly Mueller ignored.
You can't have it both ways.
And Ratcliffe absolutely shredded any ounce of credibility Bob Mueller, and Joe's right, it's sad to watch this, thought he had.
That was an embarrassing display.
Copy that.
Would you treat any other American citizen like that?
No, but the president's unique.
Okay.
You got hooked into that one, Bob, big time.
Alright, this is a short one.
Here's Doug Collins again in another masterful display.
Now I'm hoping to get to this Wall Street Journal article at some point.
I've got, ladies and gentlemen, I've got so much material.
I haven't even talked about the border, the budget stuff.
Please don't miss my, this show and the following two.
We're going to get it all in before Friday.
I did not, everybody, I got a bunch of emails.
You didn't mention the budget, the disastrous budget deal.
Listen, I'll get, there's just a lot going on.
I've got an hour with you.
I want to take full advantage of it.
The Wall Street Journal piece, which I hope to get to later, lays out these important points why obstruction doesn't exist.
But there's another op-ed by this guy, Tom Baker, and he asks a fantastic question.
He says, someone needs to ask Bob Mueller, basically, what were you prevented from doing if you thought the president committed a crime?
What were you prevented from doing?
If you think the president, there's evidence of obstruction, what stopped you?
What an awesome question.
Man.
Here's a 10-second clip or less of Collins kind of hinting at the same thing, and Mueller, again, just folding like a cheap suit here.
Here you go.
At any time of the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?
No.
Huh.
Uh.
Uh.
I don't.
I.
Oh.
I don't. Oh.
Okay.
I thought this was an obstruction.
So it's an obstruction case where nothing was obstructed.
Did I miss that?
So let me just be clear on this.
So there's a collusion case that the whole investigation is based on a Steele dossier collusion theory that even Mueller thoroughly discredits that's debunked.
So you're investigating a crime you acknowledge didn't happen and then you purport an obstruction theory you would have prosecuted the president on although you just acknowledged to Doug Collins there was no obstruction.
Did I miss that?
Could we play that again?
Is that even possible?
I'm not even sure.
Without shutting the... I don't want to shut down my whole... Here we go.
At any time of the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped?
Or hindered?
No.
There we go.
Again.
For the second time.
I just, I don't get it.
This is unfathomable.
And yet the liberals listening, I just played that for you twice, will still be convinced there's an obstruction case here.
Did he obstruct you?
No, no, not at all.
Yeah, but we got an obstruction case.
Why didn't you charge it?
Uh, OLC.
Yeah, but that's not what you told Bill Barr.
You said it wasn't OLC.
Uh, I don't really know.
Does this guy have an answer for anything?
Oh, I love this show so much.
I do.
I love it.
I love doing this show.
Every day I wake up excited to talk to you.
You have made this thing such a pleasurable experience.
But I must tell you, having to constantly engage in third grade level pseudo-intellectual debates with clueless, hapless, conspiracy theory promoting liberal nutcases is so exhausting you have no idea.
The president obstructed justice!
Bob Mueller, did he obstruct your gate?
No, not at all.
Um, okay.
Whatevs.
All right, moving on.
Last sponsor of the day, but a great one.
I got some more video.
I got, don't go anywhere.
This is, I promise you, this is going to be a cornucopia of content for you today, today and tomorrow.
GenuCell.
We love GenuCell, my mother-in-law's favorite product.
Hey, listen, you want that neck looking tight and young?
GenuCell.
This is the jawline treatment with their MDL technology.
This is my bottle here.
We love this stuff.
Hey, you little GenuCell there.
You wish that double chin would just disappear.
Newsflash, ladies and gentlemen, people look at your jawline, it tells your age.
Here is the famous, famous Robin from Lubbock, Texas.
Here's what she said about Jen Youssef.
I put GenuCell jawline cream on my neck two or three days ago.
It's the best my neck has looked in over 20 years.
People told me my face looks young.
I'm blown away.
Yes, Robin, you would be.
This is great stuff.
Using MDL technology and Chamonix proprietary base, GenuCell's brand new jawline treatment specifically targets the delicate skin around the neck and jaw for tight, tight, healthy, younger looking skin.
My mother-in-law digs this stuff like you have no idea.
They send us little boxes of it.
My mother-in-law's like, oh, thank you, shopping time.
See results right before your eyes or 100% of your money back.
No questions asked.
Order now.
And the classic GenuCell for bags and puffiness under those eyes is free with your order.
Start seeing results in 12 hours or less with GenuCell immediate effects, which is also yours free.
Gratis.
No double chin.
No turkey neck.
And no sagging jawline because no one needs to know your age.
Go to genucel.com.
G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com.
That's genucel.com.
Here's your promo code, folks.
Dan25.
That's Dan25.
Get your two free gifts and free express shipping.
Don't miss out.
Go to genucel.com.
That's genucel.com.
Enter Dan25, Dan25 at checkout.
It's great stuff.
You're going to love it.
Okay.
This, although the Radcliffe portion thus far I think is the most important takeaway that Mueller has established a new standard of justice in the United States, I would argue that this clip here we're gonna play now of Representative Chalmette is the most damaging to Mueller's credibility of all.
Folks, Bob Mueller, you know what, let me just play the cut and come back.
This is so, let me just set this one part up.
Everybody listening to the show, you're aware, right, that this entire collusion, hoax, conspiracy theory, right?
The entire hoax is based on Steele's ridiculous debunked charges in the dossier, right?
There is no evidence of collusion.
It only appears... Everybody knows this, right?
Christopher Steele hired by Hillary Clinton.
I'm sorry to restate the obvious, but this clip will make a lot more sense about how Bob Mueller's credibility is now entirely gone.
This is the most important towards his credibility.
Everybody listening to the show, Steele hired by Hillary.
Steele makes these assertions in the dossier and other information about Trump colluding with the Russians.
The dossier is entirely debunked.
That is the only place this collusion fiasco exists.
Steele was hired by Fusion GPS.
Chalbit asked Smoller about Fusion GPS.
Unbelievably, unbelievably, listen to his answer.
When discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you referenced, quote, the firm that produced Steele reporting, unquote.
The name of that firm was Fusion GPS.
Is that correct?
And you're on page 103?
103, that's correct.
Volume 2.
When you talk about the firm that produced the steel reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS.
Is that correct?
I'm not familiar with that.
It was.
It's not it's not a trick question.
It was Fusion GPS.
Now, Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document widely known as the Steele dossier, and the owner of Fusion GPA was someone named Glenn Simpson.
Are you familiar with?
Yeah, this is outside my purview.
Oh, my gosh.
Oh, dude.
Wait, so let's get this straight, Bob.
Taxi Medallion investigations by Cohen were inside your purview, so you can investigate them and refer them out.
That's fine.
But you don't even know who Fusion GPS is?
Folks, I did not manipulate that.
Joe did not edit that.
That is a complete thought.
Now, it's cut.
Obviously, it's not the whole three hour.
It's cut.
But that is not an edited, cryptically edited, deceptively edited video.
That is a complete thought.
Right.
And his name's Chabit.
Sorry, not Chabit.
I put an L in there.
Bob Mueller doesn't know who Fusion GPS is?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is... This is incredible.
I mean, this is... Liberals, you're hanging your hat on this guy?
He doesn't even know who the company that started the collusion hoax he's investigating is?
Fusion is the case.
That's outside of your purview.
I know nothing!
Nothing!
Obviously!
I don't know any other way to explain this.
Dude.
Bob Mueller was hired to investigate Trump team alleged collusion with Russia that exists only in a document produced by Fusion GPS.
It doesn't exist anywhere else.
And Bob Mueller, in his own words, doesn't know who Fusion GPS is?
I'm not familiar with that?
Ladies and gentlemen, again, this is sad.
This is really... Joe has framed it up perfectly.
You're right, Dan.
With the simplest word, this is sad.
It's sad for the country.
It's sad for Mueller.
It's really sad for the Democrats.
I mean, they did it to themselves.
It's sad for Republicans, too, that we have to sit through this fiasco with a budget disaster.
You know, I love the economy, it's doing well, but we could always be doing better.
We could be fixing our healthcare crisis, this immigration crisis.
What are we doing?
We're sitting up here with a sorry, discredited, once lauded figure in the American public who doesn't even know the name of the company that started the investigation he allegedly led.
Folks, this is a total, complete embarrassment.
A total, complete, apocalyptic, cosmic-level embarrassment for the Democrats.
He doesn't even know.
The name of the company.
That's not in your purview.
That's why you were hired, Bob!
Do you not know this?
Are you blissfully unaware of the fact that the Deputy Director of the FBI has already said on the record that the document produced by Fusion GPS, the dossier, was the bedrock of their ability to spy on Trump for a collusion case that doesn't exist?
Did you not know that?
I mean, this is unforgivable.
I'm sorry.
I had it with the Democrats a long time ago.
But ladies and gentlemen, this stuff is really unforgivable.
You have wasted the country's time.
You've wasted everybody's time.
Even the hapless media.
There's no way to defend this.
You don't know who Fusion is.
Trying to think of that.
What's that movie?
You have, oh, remember Rocky 2?
When Rocky's sitting there trying to do the, you know, Smeal Manley, and he's in the cage, and that jerkwad director, you have wasted my time, you have wasted the producer's time, the director's time, just go, Rock, just go.
You have wasted everybody's time because you cannot read, Rock.
You can't read, Rock.
I remember that.
I said Smeal Manley, Smeal Manley.
This is embarrassing, I'm taking this nose off.
Yeah, you have wasted everyone's time because you can't read, Rock.
Folks, I'm sorry.
Bob Mueller just wasted everybody's time.
He doesn't know.
He thinks Fusion GPS smeels manly.
It doesn't smeel manly.
It smells manly.
Like Buchanan.
You devil!
He doesn't know!
He thinks it's Smeels Mainly!
It does not Smeel Mainly!
It is not Fuzion SPG!
Like Smeels Mainly!
It's Fusion GPS!
They paid for the document you're investigating!
It doesn't smeel manly!
It smells manly!
You have wasted everyone's time!
Go back and watch that clip now.
You'll be thinking of the Democrats today.
My gosh, what a disaster.
Yeah.
Smeels manly.
I need a little levity, dude.
It is.
It's so sad.
Oh, gosh, me too.
No, it is.
It's sad.
And once in a while, I don't like that.
I don't want to bring the audience down in a pithole of sorrow.
We live in the greatest country on earth.
You know, we'll get through this.
But today's a bad day.
Really, nobody comes out of this.
The whole country loses today.
Everyone loses.
They lose, lose, lose.
And I'm here in an hour or less to tell you why, so you know, so hopefully this disgraced fiasco is never repeated again.
Oh boy.
All right.
I got more.
Queue up that Fox clip view of mine of Barr on the street interview.
This is a good one because I'm going to kind of get to some more.
We're going to get some more video in the next show.
So don't worry.
I'm not done with the hearing, but we record at like 11 o'clock.
So I got you the highlights from the morning.
And obviously we'll cover the rest of it later.
Nunes hasn't even talked yet as of this, and we'll get to that later.
And I'll cover Jim Jordan, who has, who nailed Mueller on Ms.
Sood, which was great.
This is important, though.
The Democrats are now promoting another conspiracy theory along with their obstruction conspiracy theory, collusion conspiracy theory.
It's just insane.
Yeah, another one.
Now, the conspiracy theory goes like this.
Bill Barr gave instructions to Bob Mueller before the hearing today, Joe.
You can see this story up at FoxNews.com, by the way.
Please read the show.
Don't say they're very good at Bongino.com.
Subscribe to my email list.
I'll send them to you.
Bill Barr gave obstructions, obstructions, obstructions to Mueller, instructions to Mueller to not say anything outside of the report, that basically the report is your statement.
It was an investigation conducted for two years.
If you're going to add something now, then reopen the investigation.
Fair enough.
Of course, media hacks who have zero credibility, they're nothing more than two-bit conspiracy theory promoting loons.
The media hacks of course jumped on that show with the libs and said what?
There it is!
Bill Barr's telling Mueller what to say!
They're hiding something!
It's a cover-up.
Jerry Nadler actually used those terms because Nadler's completely... I mean, Nadler never had credibility, so there's nothing to lose.
Nobody really... Nadler's even real is bizarre.
He's such a phony that it's hard to believe a guy like this actually exists and thinks he's for real.
He's got a case of the Freddie for reals, a high school quarterback who years later is still living off the touchdown pass.
Nadler, although trust me, he never threw a touchdown pass.
He's got a bad case of the for reals.
He actually used the term cover-up.
Ladies and gentlemen, what's the problem with this?
Barr's telling Mueller what to say.
They're covering information up.
Well, Fox News grabbed a quick interview with Barr on the street yesterday.
Well, here's from foxnews.com, this is great.
Attorney General Bill Barr told Fox News on Tuesday that it was Bob Mueller's team who asked the Justice Department to send Mueller a letter telling him to keep his upcoming testimony, quote, within the boundaries of the public version of the report.
I'm going to play this for you in a second, but folks, if you need it in written format, Mueller asked Barr for instructions.
Barr didn't tell Mueller anything.
He was responding to Mueller's inquiry.
What a cover-up, Joe!
Hey, can you tell me what I'm supposed to do here?
Hey, you're supposed to do what you said you would do in your press conference.
Stick to the report you issued in the investigation.
Okay, thanks, Bill.
Cover-up!
Cover-up!
Johnny Football, Jerry Nather, it's a cover-up!
Oh, these people are so stupid!
It is like, I mean, it is exponential levels of stupid.
Here's Bill Barr explaining that in an on-the-street interview with Fox News.
Check this out.
His staff was reiterating that that was their position and they asked us for guidance in writing to explain or to tell them what our position was.
Did you hear the horn after the Nadler answer?
the guidance they had requested.
So Mueller actually requested to get it.
Secondly, what do you think of Congressman Nadler lashing out
saying this was arrogant to send this letter?
Well, he was misinformed. That's the fact.
And thirdly, on Congress, any reaction to them
holding you in contempt?
No.
Nothing? Goes with the territory.
These days. Did you hear the horn?
After the Nadler answer? It was like an instant drop. It was
informed. Bum bum. It was like some.
It was like somebody did that on purpose, you know?
Oh, you know, I need those Thug Life glasses.
You know that meme they do where the guy, the cigarette goes in the mouth?
If we could do that effect, that would be great.
Paula, we got to learn that one.
The Thug Life meme.
The glasses go on to the cigarette.
Not for me, for Barr.
I mean, really, that was just epic.
Bill Barr.
So you're saying that Mueller asked for the guns?
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.
We're saying exactly that.
Hey, what do you think about Nadler?
No, no, Nadler's misinformed.
What do you think about being charged with contempt?
Yeah, it goes with the territory.
And then he goes, Just a smile at the end and walks off.
That was great.
Bill Barr, baby.
Signing off.
Bill Barr.
This guy, I love this guy.
I'm skeptical to start.
I'm starting to love Bill Barr more every day.
Another Democrat hoax completely 100% annihilated.
All right, I want to leave with this one last story.
And then please, tomorrow's show is going to be epic too.
We're going to record some pieces here, some pieces there, get some more stuff.
You're not going to want to miss part two.
I've got some good information for you.
I'm reasonably confident it's going to happen.
Let's just say.
OK, if we go to the Wall Street Journal piece, there was an interesting piece in the journal today.
The FBI's obstruction probe had no basis.
This is by Tom Baker, the piece we talked about before.
I encourage you to read it.
Subscription only.
So I'm not going to put in the show notes, but you're free to look it up.
That's the title right there.
If you have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.
But there's a piece of this that I want to again just lay the groundwork why what the Democrats are doing today is going to go nowhere.
Ladies and gentlemen, their obstruction case is a disaster.
There are people who have testified, FBI officials who hate Trump.
Under oath, repeatedly, that there has been no effort to obstruct an investigation in addition to the video we just played before by Doug Collins asking Mueller, is there anything you were prevented from doing?
No!
Here's the clip from the Wall Street Journal, which lays out hardcore material evidence that this obstruction case is another hoax.
Quote, FBI Director Jim Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee May 3rd of 2017.
That interference in the counterintelligence investigation, quote, has not happened.
Let me read that last line again.
Comey, were you interfered with?
No, the interference, quote, has not happened.
Six days later, President Trump fired Comey.
On May 11th, Acting Director Andrew McCabe testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that there had been, quote, no effort, quote, no effort for liberals, quote, no effort to impede our investigation to date.
No effort to impede our investigation to date.
In his book, The Threat, Mr. McCabe writes that he ordered the Bureau to investigate obstruction solely because of Mr. Comey's firing.
Yet, Mr. Comey acknowledged in his farewell address to agents that the President had the right to fire him, quote, for any reason or for no reason at all.
Case closed.
It's over.
It's over.
You have no case.
It's over.
All right, folks, again, please stay tuned to tomorrow's show.
I haven't even touched John Solomon's bombshell on Mifsud, which, you know, we've been talking about for two years now.
Solomon's piece is good.
Don't get me wrong, that wasn't a knock at Solomon.
He has some new stuff.
But the Mifsud story is certainly not new.
We got that.
I've got other stuff and more footage from this hearing today.
Total disaster.
Democrats, you did a good job blowing up any remnants of your credibility left.
Please subscribe to the show.
YouTube.com slash Bongino on Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, iHeart, the subscriptions help us move up the charts, folks.
It's totally free to subscribe, helps other people find us, keeps our marketing budget low, makes the show competitive.
We really appreciate that.
Thanks a lot.
I'll see you all a little later tonight and tomorrow where I'll be adding some stuff.
Take care.
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
