In this episode, I address the latest, outrageous political attack on President Trump from deep within the government swamp. I also address more troubling connections between the Democrats and the Spygate, Ukraine, Uranium One players. Finally, I discuss the media’s obsession with Lev Parnas and his severe credibility issues.
News Picks:Jim Comey is in deep trouble.
The GAO said Obama broke the law too. Why wasn’t Obama impeached?
Lev Parnas’s credibility continues to get flushed down the toilet.
This February 2019 article documents the Clintons troubling connections to a suspect Russian enterprise.
What was the Skolkovo project really about?
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.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can't encourage you strongly enough to make sure you listen to all of this week's shows where I tied together for you all of the connections in Spygate, Mullergate, Ukrainegate, how these people...
Under this big umbrella headline, they all know each other and they all need something.
All of these anti-Trump scandals are all tied together.
These people know each other.
We nailed Ukraine this week, we nailed the whole Spygate debacle, and I've been covering that.
Today, I have the final piece of this puzzle.
On, again, how all these people know each other and they all need something.
All of the anti-Trump conspiracy theories are run by the same folks.
Today I have what they're really hiding, these people who know each other.
In Russia and the Clintons.
You're not going to want to miss that section.
We'll get to the news of the day first.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
It's Friday!
It's Friday!
And Joe, because you know, of course, the liberal media, despite the fact that all we do is facts and data on the show, they will call us conspiracy theorists because Joe has his conspiracy theory tinfoil cap on to deflect the rays penetrating his skull.
Very good, Joe.
I can't take it anymore!
Following, I know you can't, following up on yesterday's show.
Well done, Joe.
That's his media deflection device from the media conspiracy theories.
You got to laugh at me out of that one.
Nice.
Nice.
All right, let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Lending Club.
For decades, credit cards have been telling us, buy now, pay later with interest.
And despite your best intentions, that interest can get out of control fast.
With LendingClub, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Nice!
Since 2007, LendingClub has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable, fixed-rate personal loans.
No trips to a bank, no high-interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com slash Dan.
LendingClub.com.
Tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow.
Pick the terms that are right for you.
And if you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
LendingClub is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
Go to LendingClub.com.
Check your rate in minutes.
Borrow up to $40,000.
That's LendingClub.com slash Dan.
LendingClub.com slash Dan.
All loans made by WebBank, member FDIC, equal housing lender.
Check out the club.
LendingClub.com slash Dan.
Ding ding.
Joe getting ahead of me with the bell for the first time ever, but that's okay.
That's okay.
All right.
First, before we get to what they're really hiding in Russia, as I said, this has been the, what are they really hiding the Democrats week where we've uncovered all the connections between these people who know each other.
I wanted to be sure I nailed this first because yesterday breaking news while we were on the air, Joe, you know, regarding the, Holding of the Ukrainian military aid that's become the subject of this impeachment fiasco, which the Democrats falsely allege was being held up because President Trump wanted an investigation open into Hunter Biden.
There was no one for one deal there that's been debunked thoroughly.
There is no evidence of that.
There are no victims in this case.
The Ukrainians have not alleged that the military aid was held up for investigations.
Nobody's alleged that.
This is an alleged crime he's being impeached for with no victims, which is puzzling.
So, uh, well, not if you understand Democrats in the medium, but yesterday we had another big story and the story was that the GAO, the government accountability office that works for the Congress, of course, Came out and said, President Trump may have broken the law with delaying the aid.
And everybody was like, yes!
The media people were like, this is great.
We have another stupid talking point.
Yeah, I know.
To take down President Trump.
This is wonderful.
We saw this story come out.
Media celebrated.
They were all cracking champagne.
They had a little Dom Perignon.
Maybe tequila shots.
Maybe a little Casa Dragones or something.
Maybe some margaritas.
Who knows?
But they were celebrating.
Well, that was until we found out that the GAO alleging that this delay in Ukrainian military aid was illegal.
Until we found out that the GAO has accused just about every president in American history since its inception of breaking the law by doing things like this.
And the best piece of it... Nice!
Look at Paul getting ahead of me.
I like that.
The best piece I saw on this was by Matt Margolis in PJ Media.
Story that'll be up at the show notes.
Headline, the GAO ruled Obama broke the law in 2014.
But no one called for Obama's impeachment.
Crazy how that happens.
It's just insane.
So now we want to impeach the president, like the GAO says he broke the law, so now we have grounds for impeachment.
Keep in mind, this was not even an impeachment charge.
This was not even an impeachment charge, this GAO thing, because it just happened yesterday.
Right.
Now, you may say, well, I got it.
This is going to get more interesting in a moment, so don't go anywhere.
Oh, are you rebelling us here?
There's no second round bell.
There's no second round bell.
Did it, Bill?
No, no, there's no second round bell.
So the GAO has said clearly that this president, Donald Trump, broke the law.
The media is celebrating.
But again, nobody called for Obama's impeachment when they said the same thing.
Now, I've got a few points on this, but let me go to the PJ media piece first, because this is an important takeaway.
Quote, That's right.
Back in 2014, the GAO ruled that Obama's prisoner swap of five detainees at Gitmo in exchange for deserter Bo Bergdahl violated federal law.
I don't remember the calls for impeachment back then.
This is the GAO statement.
The Department of Defense violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriation
Act when it transferred five individuals detained at Gitmo Cuba to the nation of Qatar without
providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees, the GAO explained.
Where were the calls for Obama's impeachment then over the GAO's?
And by the way, this is an unconstitutional thing.
It's been fought by every president.
The GAO has accused... I'm not kidding, folks.
This is literal.
Just about every president in modern American history of breaking the law for delaying some appropriation based on Congress.
Where were the calls for Obama's impeachment?
The answer is they didn't exist, of course, because he was Obama.
And Obama's a Democrat, and Democrats are a protected class.
Now, what's even more fascinating about this, so you have the facts to debate your clueless liberal friends, your first question should be, so you agree that the GAO saying the president broke the law means he actually broke the law and should be impeached?
Your liberal friends, because they're not that bright, they're typically, you know, liberals don't really know anything.
I mean, sorry, but it's just true.
I've debated them on TV and they're either clueless or liars most of the time.
Your second question should be, well, why wasn't Obama impeached?
Did you call for Obama's impeachment for the same GAO charges about a prisoner swap?
No, no, no.
We didn't call for him.
Well, why didn't you?
You're claiming you have principles right now and that the GAO is the final arbiter of the law, which is ridiculous.
They're not the Department of Justice.
They're making this up.
It's not even a constitutional law, right?
If challenged, it would be thrown out tomorrow.
The Impoundment Act, right?
So, why didn't you call for Obama to be impeached?
The answer's obvious, because I'm a liberal and I have no principles at all.
That's why.
So you're a liar, basically.
Yeah.
How do you reconcile that?
Can you reconcile that?
Of course you can.
Again, you're a liberal.
You look in the mirror and you make things up every day and you're proud of yourself.
Yeah.
Even worse, folks, making this GAO charge that Trump broke the law even more ridiculous.
The congressional deadline, Joe, pay attention here because the dates matter.
Again, liberals have a tough time with facts and data.
The congressional deadline for allocating the money for the Ukrainian military aid they allege was held up now in violation of the law was September 30th.
Now if you're a rational person like the conservatives, libertarians, and sane democrats that listen to my show, you may say, well clearly if the congressional deadline was September 30th, Joe, and the GAO is suggesting the Trump administration broke the law by delaying the aid, that the aid had to be delayed after the deadline on September 30th, right?
That's just if you're interested in this whole reason, rationality, facts, and data thing, which I understand many liberals aren't.
So what was the date the Ukrainian military aid was actually delivered?
Clearly it had to be December or October, right?
September 12th.
Okay.
Visuals for the libs watching.
Not 1 plus 2, September 12th.
If it was even 1 plus 2, it would be September 3rd, but it's not.
It's September 12th.
Now do you understand this GAO hit was a political hack job?
Conveniently, Joe, totally coincidentally, released on the day the impeachment articles are delivered to the Senate.
Joe, stop!
Yeah!
I'm glad you had your tinfoil capped.
It's just a conspiracy theory that that was a political hit.
Yeah.
This is based on a real criminal violation.
That's right.
By the way, again, every president in modern history has been accused of.
Everybody ignores it because it's an unconstitutional law.
So what?
And the deadline for the aid to be delivered was September 30th, yet it was delivered on September 12th.
Makes total sense.
You guys got this really buttoned up.
The jury is in.
Nice job, Libs.
You really nailed it this time.
Thank you.
Oh my gosh.
It only gets dumber.
From here.
Paula suggested we keep this video in a file because we use it so often.
So just to be clear, liberals that have no principles, no spines, nothing at all, they just sincerely hate you as conservatives and the president.
Remember what I always say.
What I always say.
This is axiomatic.
Conservatives believe liberals are people with bad ideas.
Liberals believe you conservatives are bad people with ideas.
Don't ever forget that.
In other words, liberals don't care about your ideas.
They're not interested in your ideas.
Because your ideas are based on facts and data.
Here's why tax cuts work.
Here's why tax hikes don't.
Here's why patient-centered healthcare works.
Here's why government-run healthcare doesn't.
Do you understand they're not interested?
I'm not kidding.
They're not interested.
They hate you.
Whatever you stand for, they stand for the opposite.
They don't have any principles.
I'm sorry to break this to you.
I'm not talking about all Democrats.
I'm talking about the far left.
They can't stand you.
They will ruthlessly attack you.
They don't care!
You're never debating them.
You're debating them only for the sane people listening to your debate with the insane liberals who will be convinced that you have the facts and data and they don't and they're just angry.
You're debating for the third person listening.
I'm not going to tell the story I always tell, but it's important.
I have a lot of experience with this.
People came up to me all the time.
Hey man, I heard you debating that liberal over there.
That guy seemed clearly crazy.
That's because they are.
So trying again to show you how liberals have zero principles at all.
They didn't care when Obama was accused of breaking the law.
So Joe, again, throwing this past you here, make sure we're all on the same sheet of music and I'm not crazy.
Liberals are suggesting here by Trump delaying military aid, delaying it, not even past the deadline, but just delaying it to review what they were going to do with it.
Make sure we weren't giving it to a corrupt regime.
They're suggesting the delay in aid alone.
Not past the deadline, is clearly a violation of the law worthy of impeachment.
Is everybody in the audience clear?
Let me take a show of hands.
Paula, are you clear on that?
Raise a hand.
Okay, Paula's hand is up.
Joe, is your hand up?
Yes, it is.
Joe's hand is up.
Everybody agrees that the delay of aid alone, according to the anti-Trump brigade, is worthy of impeachment.
The delay of any foreign aid.
Now some of you 0001 percenters already are putting it together.
Really?
Any delay in aid allocated is impeachable?
Let's check out this little blast from the past from our buddy Joey B and I'm not talking about Joey Bagadonas.
Check this out.
And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't.
So they said they had, they were walking out to the press conference and said, no, I said, I'm not going to, we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
They said, you have no authority.
You're not the president.
The president said, I said, call him.
I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars.
I said, you're not getting a billion.
I'm going to be leaving here.
And I think it was what, six hours.
I look, I said, I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money.
Oh, son of a bitch.
Maybe we should refer to this as the principles check portion of the show.
So Libs, because you're frauds, I don't expect an answer.
Total, complete phonies and frauds with zero principles at all.
I expected that delay of aid on tape by Joe Biden, who was obviously Barack Obama's vice president, who Biden says Obama's in on it.
Did you hear the clip?
Oh, yeah.
Hey, call him.
Call him.
He's in on it.
Call him.
Call Obama.
They delayed military aid until the prosecutor in Ukraine Who is investigating Joe Biden's company, Joe Biden's son's company where he works, Burisma, in Ukraine.
Biden's demanding that prosecutor investigating the company his son works for be fired or we're not giving you aid.
And where are the Democrats and the media?
He did nothing wrong.
Crickets!
Crickets.
Crickets.
Matter of fact, I read a snippet, we don't have it here, but just in the interest of time, the New York Times editorial board's interviewing candidates for their endorsement on the Democrat side.
Yeah.
They're interviewing Biden, and I'm not kidding.
Here's how they set up the Ukraine question.
They're like, we know you did nothing wrong in Ukraine, but what do you think about your son getting hired?
They've already made the decision!
The same outlets reporting that President Trump, he may be guilty of a crime for withholding aid, are the same ones who've preemptively cleared Joe Biden from doing anything wrong.
Do you not get the disconnect?
Delay aid for Trump?
Impeach him!
Obama accused of delaying aid to Ukraine with Biden and of reallocating funds for the disastrous Bergdahl swap.
Give them the Medal of Honor, man.
They deserve it.
Do you not see, like, the disconnect?
The pieces don't... Yeah.
This is like Legos for idiots.
Like, none of the pieces actually fit.
You're like... It's like square holes and round pegs.
Good luck.
Or square pegs and round hole.
even worse.
Folks, again, your liberal friends have zero principles at all.
I'm sorry.
None.
Withhold aid, man.
Impeach that guy.
Yeah, but Biden's on tape talking about withholding aid.
Doesn't matter.
Elect him president.
Doesn't matter.
Idiots.
I swear.
You know, they have like the one that had lug alarm and Planet Fitness.
My wife just heard about this.
We need an idiot alarm on the phone.
Idiot alarm!
I mean, really, the stupidity is endless with these people.
And liberals continue to fall for it.
All right.
Listen, I got to get to Lev Parnas next before I get to my, what are they really hiding section in Russia.
We've done the, what are they really hiding in Ukraine?
And what are they really hiding with Mike Flynn?
This is going to be the capstone project to that.
Before we get to that, I want to get to Lev Parnas.
Let me just get to the second sponsor today.
Ollie!
Ollie!
Listen, you know how I feel about Ollie.
You have a pet.
The pet is probably like a member of your family.
I mean, everybody loves their pets.
I love the two dogs we have like adopted from my mother-in-law, Baby and Linda.
They're such beauties.
You know what's great about dogs?
I'm not even messing with you.
There they are.
Look at these two beauties.
You know why they look like that?
Because they eat Ollie pet food.
Those dogs are older too, but we love them to death.
You ever notice about dogs, Joe?
Whenever you come home with your pets, especially dogs, it's like they've never seen you before.
It's like they haven't seen you in 10 years.
They go crazy.
I have left the house with baby and Linda for like a half an hour to go pick up a pizza for my family.
You come back.
I'm like, I come in, right, Paul?
And I go, Doggies!
They love it.
If they were here now, they'd come running.
They know that's the sign to come in.
I don't know how it started.
I know it's goofy.
They come running to the door like there's no tomorrow.
Yeah.
They're older dogs, too, and they sprint to the door.
Why?
Because we give them Ollie.
They put your dogs first, Ollie.
They have vet-formulated recipes, fully transparent, healthy ingredients to give your dog the healthiest, best food possible.
They make fresh meals for dogs with real ingredients people can eat, legit, and delivers them to you on a regular schedule.
They taste delicious.
They beat out store-bought dog food at 10 to one on the palatability scale.
You know what that means?
It tastes good.
They create customized, vet-formulated recipes made with all natural ingredients, no preservatives, and sourced fresh from U.S.
family farms.
Go to myali.com slash try slash Bongino.
Go today.
Answer a few questions about your dog.
They'll customize recipes for your dog and ship pre-portioned meals so your pup gets the perfect portion every time.
They've delivered 5 million meals and counting.
Shipping is free.
And if your dog doesn't like the meals, they have a money back guarantee.
Your dog won't like the meals.
They will love the meals like my two do.
They won't eat anything else.
Ollie is offering our listeners 60% off your first bag, your first box, excuse me, plus a free bag of treats at myollie.com.
slash try T R Y slash Bongino B O N G I N O.
This is the best deal they have available anywhere.
Go to my Ali.com/try/Bongino for 60% off plus a free bag of treats. Don't miss out spelled my O L L I E.com/try/Bongino
today. You will not regret it. Your dogs will love you for it. All right.
So before we get to that section, I just want to address this Lev Parnas who is rapidly
becoming the Michael Avenatti of Michael Cohen's.
You know the media when they start fawning over another person who is shredding Donald Trump.
You know the media has barely done any fact-checking on the guy if there's any credibility at all.
Remember Michael Avenatti, Joe?
Creepy porn lawyer?
They loved Avenatti until he was charged with a crime.
And then all of a sudden, we're all like, wow, we didn't take Avenatti seriously.
Really?
You had him on your show.
You had him like guest hosting The View or whatever.
And then we had Michael Cohen, who they hated because he was Trump's lawyer.
And then he came out and said some things against Trump, most of which didn't even make any sense.
And then they loved Michael Cohen.
Yeah.
Well, you got to fill in that box.
So now we got this guy, Lev Parnas, who's a Ukrainian individual.
Who's claiming he has this intimate knowledge of this Ukrainian quid pro quo that literally nobody on the Ukrainian side of significance says happened.
Again, this is mysteriously a bank robbery without a bank being robbed.
In other words, these people keep coming forward and alleging there was this quid pro quo.
Trump delayed military aid.
And demanded investigations on the Bidens in exchange for that military aid.
Nobody is alleging this but the liberals.
Nobody is a witness to this.
There is no first-hand account of this at all.
And no Ukrainians have come forward and suggested that this actually happened.
Folks, wouldn't that be kind of important?
For an actual Ukrainian to come forward and say, yes, we were victims of this.
We asked for the military aid promised to us by Congress and allocated.
We didn't get it.
And the president said, you're not going to get it until you produce an investigation of Biden.
Where are the victims?
The answer is they're nowhere.
Watch this hysterical cut.
This is from the, there's no victims file on this impeachment.
None.
This is the Ukraine.
This is great.
This is great.
Cause it's CNN too.
This is CNN.
They think they've got this score of an interview, right?
They get the Ukrainian.
I shouldn't laugh my own.
This is funny.
The Ukrainian minister of foreign affairs on.
And they're like, hey, this guy Lev Parnas, this Ukrainian comes forward, says he has intimate knowledge.
He was the one who passed the quid pro quo deal to the Ukrainians.
Parnas is saying, I told these Ukrainians no money without Hunter Biden investigations.
So they get the minister of foreign affairs on and the minister of foreign affairs, they think he's going to like, he's going to come forward and he's going to, he's going to burst the bubble.
Yeah.
Listen to how this thing totally face plants on CNN.
This is great.
Lev Parnas, a crony of Rudy Giuliani, who is the president's personal lawyer, has now spoken out, as you know, and he has said several things, mostly that he did carry a very explicit message from the President via Rudy Giuliani that there would need to be a quid pro quo if Ukraine was going to continue getting any kind of assistance.
And furthermore, he has now said that he has spoken to key officials within President Zelensky's circle.
Since you are one of those, and you were when this happened, did you get that message from Lev Parnas?
It's all over Ukrainian media as well, today and yesterday.
And strangely enough, my name was not mentioned, although I'm Minister of Foreign Affairs.
And frankly, I never spoke with this individual.
And again, frankly, I don't trust any word he is now saying.
The assistance, which he is referring to, was reviewed each and every year, annually at least twice, and half a year at the end of the year.
So we knew that this assistance is to be reviewed sometimes.
It would be cut because of some political understanding of what is to be done in Ukraine, sometimes being erased, which is now we're observing.
Come on, that's a double at least.
There you go, baby.
That's a minimum of a double Mutley.
There's a three.
Christiane Armand-Poire.
Is that a triple?
Yeah, that was pretty good, bro.
It was on the edge.
I'll give you that.
It could be a triple Mutley.
You're right.
She was so intent.
It could be triple.
I'm always a little conservative with the Mutleys.
Sometimes Joe gets a little trigger happy with the Mutleys, but that may have been a triple.
Maybe a 2.5.
Half a Mutley.
Two and a half Mutley.
That's hysterical.
Christian, I'm on pause.
And I love that if you go back and rewind that, you'll see in the corner it says CNN exclusive, like, we got him now.
Yeah.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is going to come on and say, yes, Trump threatened us with this money if we didn't produce an investigation under Biden.
What does the guy come on and say?
He goes, listen, I'm really tight with Zelensky, the president who was supposedly threatened with this military aid.
We don't remember any of this.
Matter of fact, I don't trust a word coming out of that dude's mouth.
And even worse, for the trifecta of Total faceplant.
Total faceplant.
He says at the end, and by the way, this military aid is reviewed twice a year anyway.
Like, this was nothing unusual.
You could not have a trifecta of stupid better than that.
Not for the Ukrainian.
For CNN, who really thought, we got a hook here, man.
We got a news hook, man.
Big time.
Oh, you got a news hook.
Just not the one you thought you had.
So Pardis, who's alleging he gave this message to the Ukrainians, can't find a Ukrainian who actually received the message he said he delivered.
Nobody, no Ukrainian.
Matter of fact, the only Ukrainians they could find are saying, we never heard of this message.
That's not what happened.
I don't trust this guy.
Oh, and by the way, the Ukrainian military age reviewed twice a year anyway.
Exclusive.
CNN exclusive.
It doesn't get any better than that.
You know what?
You're right.
That may have been a triple.
I'm sorry.
I'm definitely underselling that.
Even Paula was laughing.
Paula's usually busy doing techie stuff back there, putting stuff flying across the sky.
I don't even know what she does.
She was even laughing at that one.
When Paula's laughing, I know it's good.
Now, it gets even worse for CNN.
This is noted Russian collusion hoaxer from the New York Times, Maggie Haberman.
One of the primary Russian collusion hoaxers at the New York Times.
Even she's on CNN.
I'm telling you, like, tier one level collusion hoaxer.
Even she's on CNN like, Are you really sure we should be putting a lot of stock in Parnas?
Like, didn't we try this before with the creepy porn lawyer and Cohen before their credibility exploded?
I think maybe we should hold it.
This is a collusion hoaxer telling everyone, Tio, baby, full stop.
We may want to reevaluate this guy because nothing he's saying is actually panning out.
This sounds hilarious.
What Parnas was saying, we cut out the first part, he was actually saying he should be a Republican witness.
Republicans should wanna talk to me because I can tell them about your plan.
They do, but not for the reasons he thinks.
There are some Republicans who actually are talking privately
about the idea that maybe he wouldn't be the worst witness for us to call because we could try to
hit into his credibility.
And again, just for the reasons that we just said, there are concerns that he would not be able to hold up.
I mean, one of the hallmarks of the Trump era is that anybody who is oppositional to Trump,
it's instant credibility.
We have seen it over and over again.
Michael Avenatti, Cohen at various points, even when he was admitting to lying to Congress
at some point after he had pleaded guilty to other charges.
It's important to just assess these facts on their own.
And Parnas knows what he's doing.
He knows that it's very compelling to go on TV and say, I'm here, come take me.
And he's clearly hoping that's going to help him in his criminal case.
I don't know that it will.
But again, I think that if he got called as a witness, it might not go the way he's describing it.
That's all.
Oh my gosh, a moment of honest journalism from Maggie Haberman, who is like the voice of reason on CNN.
This is crazy.
How do you know you've jumped the shark?
Seriously, when the Russian collusion hoaxer crowd is even coming out going, maybe we should kind of rewind the tape a little bit is on this cat.
It's really not panning out.
I'm just, I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
Now it gets worse for Parnas, we covered a little bit of Parnas yesterday, who says he delivered that message to his Sergei Sofir, forgive me if I'm saying the name wrong, an aide to the Ukrainian president, separate from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs guy by the way.
And even Sergei's like, I didn't get this, I don't know what this guy's talking about, I didn't get the message.
The Daily Caller is a great piece, again up in the show notes, please subscribe to my show notes.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
If you subscribe to our newsletter, we will send you these articles so you don't have to call the internet for them.
You can always, of course, go to BonginoReport.com, our alternative to the Drudge Report, where we have these articles up too.
Chuck Ross, Daily Caller.
Lev Parnas' comments to the New York Times conflict with the CNN report about a secret mission for Trump.
Now, Joe, I bet you didn't realize it, but your conspiracy theory tinfoil cap, here's another one.
This guy sounds like he could use a tinfoil cap himself.
So Parnas, who has allegedly told multiple people about this Ukrainian deal, multiple people who have no idea what he's talking about, by the way, just going to throw that in there, has also said that President Trump sent him on a secret mission.
Ooh.
Sounds crazy.
It does.
He's like 008 or something, this guy.
So Pardis was on a secret mission.
Wow.
Really?
That's funny because in a conflicting report, he never even met the president.
It's like, well, who is that?
You know, I haven't watched James Bond in a while.
I used to love it growing up.
Roger Moore was my favorite.
Listen, don't at me on Twitter.
I get it.
I know Sean Connery.
It's like considered like the Bible that Sean Connery is the best.
I liked Roger Moore.
Call me crazy.
I loved it.
I liked, I thought Roger Moore was the best.
I'm just throwing that out there.
I know I'll get a million emails, but that's okay.
But Parnas clearly thought he was 008 or whatever.
So here's a piece from, here's a snippet from the Chuck Ross piece, which talks about Parnas having more credibility issues with his secret 008 meeting with the president.
Quote, Parnas' comments to the New York Times on Wednesday appear to conflict with what CNN reported about the Soviet-born businessman back in November.
Lev Parnas told the New York Times that he did not speak directly with President Trump about his Ukraine-related efforts.
Instead, Parnas worked with Rudy Giuliani.
Well, that's fascinating, Joe, because CNN reported on November 16th that associates of Parnas said that he claimed he spoke privately with Trump in late 2018 about Ukraine and that the president tasked him with a secret mission.
Go get the... What were the stones from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?
Go get the stones.
Go get the stones from... I loved Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
I can't remember.
What was it?
Molaram!
Molaram!
Go get the stones from Molaram!
Lev Parnas got the mission.
Stones, Molaram, you go get them.
And release all the kids at the end.
Remember that?
And the kids go... There you go.
Molaram.
Go get Molaram.
Unfortunately, he didn't meet with Indiana Jones, Molarob, or President Trump.
It appears Parnas' conflicting stories both can't make sense.
Either the president sent you on a secret mission, or you never met the president and you lied.
Please tell me what option C is.
Okay, there isn't.
Ugh.
They make it so easy, folks.
Bye.
I know you liberals out there, too.
I get it.
Libs would be like, why do you got a character assassin?
I don't know this guy.
I'm not character assassinating.
I've never met this cat in my life.
I'm simply suggesting to you that if you're going to impeach the president based on his charge, that he was negotiating a deal with the Ukrainians, that someone on the Ukrainian side should be able to say there was a deal with the Ukrainians.
No?
Is that not a fair question?
Where am I going wrong?
Where is your victim is what I'm suggesting.
You're alleging a crime you're going to throw the country into, a high crime, you're going to throw the country into turmoil over and impeach a duly elected president with no victim and no evidence?
I guess so.
Because again, you don't really have any principles, so it doesn't really matter.
All right, let's start this section here because this is important.
This whole week, We've had the banner headline.
Ladies and gentlemen, all of the Trump conspiracy theories directed at him and the attacks, they're all related.
It's all the same people.
They all know each other.
They're all part of the swamp.
And as I said yesterday, that's nothing new.
We know there's a swamp that hates Trump.
What's new is I've been documenting how they not only all know each other, but they all need each other.
Need each other for what?
Well, once they're all exposed, nobody wants the other guy who knows about the robbed bank or the spying conspiracy theory or whatever, ratting on them.
So they all need each other to keep quiet and shut the f*** up.
They all know each other.
They're all interconnected through financial networks, jobs, NGOs.
I've documented it exclusively using their own web links.
You don't need to take my word for it.
Just go to the web resources I've provided for you.
This section's gonna be important.
We covered Flynn, we covered Ukraine, we covered Spygate.
This is what the Democrats are really hiding in Russia, and how all of these people are connected.
We will document this again using solid sources, some of them down the middle, some of them right-leaning sources, but the information is absolutely true.
Let's start.
We're going to call this portion of the show, what are the Democrats really hiding in Russia?
The Skolkovo edition.
You're like, man, we haven't heard about Skolkovo in a while.
Well, you'll want to hear about it now because a lot of this stuff I think is going to come out if the Republicans get to call witnesses in the trial so we can see the interconnected web of corruption.
So what is Skolkovo and how does this relate to what the Democrats are really hiding in Russia?
Let's go to the great John Solomon's article in The Hill.
By the way, John just launched justthenews.com.
John Solomon, I highly, highly recommend you check it out.
An actual news site, justthenews.com.
Good job by John Solomon.
But here's an older article from The Hill by the great John Solomon, who's done some tremendous work on this.
This will be in the show notes again today.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
If you want to sign up and read it, it is worth your time.
John Solomon, the case for Russia collusion against the Democrats.
Now, we've always known that if the Democrat story is true that Christopher Steele was using Russian sources while being paid by Hillary, then if the Democrat story is true, that is tautologically colluding with the Russians.
Is it not?
Of course it is, unless you're a media moron or a liberal who, again, is immune to facts.
Or the Democrats lied, never had Russian sources to begin with, and made up the whole story against Donald Trump.
You can't really have that both ways, but whatever.
Liberals don't really do facts, so it doesn't really matter.
Right.
How does this relate to Skolkovo?
What was Skolkovo?
Skolkovo was a Russian technology project where the Russians tried to emulate or replicate, probably a more precise term, Silicon Valley.
They wanted a Russian Silicon Valley where they had a technology corridor where they could profit from.
That's what the Skolkovo project was.
Now, what it really was is going to come up in a minute.
Stay tuned.
Don't go anywhere for this segment.
This is going to get juicy.
But Skolkovo was sold to us, Joe, as a technology project for this big Russian market.
This will be so cool.
All these companies wanted to jump in.
And who promoted this Skolkovo project?
By the way, which would benefit the Russians, not us.
Who was promoting this thing relentlessly?
Let's go back to the Solomon piece, because this is crazy how this happens.
You know, Trump was allegedly colluding with the Russians.
Not, oh, Hillary Clinton!
Come on!
Quote, John Solomon.
I know, crazy time, Joe.
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Lavrov and then President Medvedev, Russian President Medvedev, to create U.S.
technology partnerships with Moscow's version of Silicon Valley, a sprawling high-tech campus known as Skolkovo.
It sounds like Castle Grayskull from He-Man.
Clinton's handprint was everywhere on the 2009-10 project, the tip of the diplomatic spear to reboot U.S.-Russia relations after years of hostility prompted by Putin's actions in Georgia.
A donor to the Clinton Foundation.
This is crazy!
A donor to the Clinton Foundation?
Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg led the Russian side of the Skolkovo effort, and several American donors to Clinton's charity also got involved.
Whoa!
This is nuts!
Clinton's State Department facilitated U.S.
companies working with the Russian project, and she personally invited Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley.
That's just crazy.
So this Russian technology project, remember, we're not supposed to be colluding with the Russians, Joe.
Remember, Trump did that.
That's why they're wanting to impeach.
Remember Nancy Pelosi confused her hoaxes the other day?
That's right.
Now they're impeaching him for Russia.
I thought it was Ukraine.
I don't know.
They don't even know what it is anymore.
Crazy.
Debunk conspiracy theory.
But as you know, as Tucker Carlson says often again, what the Democrats accuse you of is what they're really doing themselves.
So it appears that there's this Russian technology project called Skolkovo, which was up to something else, by the way.
It wasn't really technology, by the way.
That Hillary Clinton seemed to really love.
And these companies that donate to the Clinton Foundation are jumping into the Skolkovo Foundation project on the advice of Hillary Clinton.
And that one of the biggest supporters of the project, intimately involved, a guy by the name of Viktor Vekselberg, This guy has a relationship to the Clintons, too?
That's just insane.
So not only did Hillary really like Skolkovo, the project, and not only did Skolkovo really like Hills, but they really like Bill Clinton, too.
Let's go to part two of John Solomon's Hill piece, which is pretty damning for old Billy Boy.
So regarding the Skolkovo project, the collaboration occurred at the exact same time Bill Clinton... This is the Hillary Skolkovo collaboration.
Joe, this is all a coincidence too, by the way.
...happened at the exact same time Bill Clinton made his now infamous trip to Russia to pick up a jaw-dropping $500,000 check for a single speech.
The exact same time Hillary's promoting the Skolkovo Russia project.
No relation, folks.
Don't you worry.
It goes on.
The former president's trip secretly raised eyebrows inside his wife's State Department internal email show.
I'm sure we made those up, too.
That's because Bill Clinton asked permission to meet with — this is just insane — Viktor Vekselberg, the head of Skolkovo, and Arkady Divorkovich, a senior Russian official at Rosatom.
Rosatom?
You mean the Russian nuclear giant seeking State Department permission to buy Uranium One?
A Canadian company with massive U.S.
uranium reserves.
Unbelievable.
Duh.
Again, media people, nothing.
Don't worry.
Ignore all of this.
It's all a coincidence.
No worries.
So just to rewind the tape here, What are they really hiding in Russia, the Democrats?
Hillary's running the State Department as Secretary of State.
Her husband's overseas collecting a 500k check for one speech.
On the speech visit, he requests to meet with Vexelberg, who's running the Skolkovo project, and Dvorkovich, who's running a company that's involved in the Uranium One deal, where we sold our uranium assets to Russian interests.
Crazy time!
All the while, while donors to the Skolkovo Project are also donating to the Clinton Foundation, too.
And Clinton is, in turn, pushing the Skolkovo Project.
You may say, okay, I still don't get it.
So Clinton benefiting from companies, the Clinton Foundation is benefiting from companies involved with Skolkovo.
Bill Clinton is personally benefiting from the trip over there and meeting with the guy running Skolkovo while the state department's seeking permission for all these deals with Rosatom and Uranium One and his wife is the state department head.
Sounds a little bit like shady Washington Swamp stuff.
But does it get worse?
Oh, yes, it does.
Or I wouldn't talk about it on the Dan Bongino show, as you see in these handy dandy icons in the back.
Yeah.
What was the Skolkovo project really up to?
Well, don't ask me.
Let's just ask U.S.
Army Intel.
U.S.
Army Intel.
That sounds really bad.
Yeah, it is.
Let's go to this Daily Caller piece by Diana West.
Where she covers, the title of the piece, by the way, will be in the show notes today.
Worth reviewing.
Hillary's hypersonic missile gap.
What the hell?
What does that have to do with Skolkovo?
Well, if you go down... If you go down to the body of the piece, we'll find out exactly what that has to do with Skolkovo.
You know, hypersonic missiles, the things that can kill us because we don't have a missile defense system for it?
They go at multiple times the speed of sound.
Yeah, those missiles, right?
Oh, yeah.
So, Diana... Yeah, those ones.
Just wanted to clear that up, Joe.
Thank you.
Quote Diana West Peace.
Not even this plain shocking language from the army in circa 2012.
She hears she goes into the language can alter people's view of this.
This is crazy.
Skolkovo is from the army folks.
Skolkovo is an ambitious enterprise aiming to promote technology transfer generally by inbound direct investment and occasionally through selected acquisitions.
As such, Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage, with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently.
Just to be clear, there is widespread belief amongst intelligence professionals, as reported by Diana West, That the Skolkovo Project had nothing to do with technology, for economic purposes, and everything to do with technology.
To steal it, to use it to create things like hypersonic missiles to attack the United States.
Good job, Hills!
Way to promote, as the Secretary of State, the best interests of the U.S.
Very well done.
And of course by very well done, I mean absolutely horrible.
So just to rewind before I put the capstone on the capstone, because there's more.
I just want to rewind the tape first.
Hills promotes Skolkovo.
Skolkovo is believed to be an industrial espionage project by the Russians to steal military technology we can use for dual applications.
The head of the Skolkovo project is all pally with the Clintons.
Clintons wants a visit with him when he goes over there and he's getting 500k from a bank associated with the Uranium One deal where Clinton says he wants to meet with the guy who's involved with the company acquiring Uranium One.
Don't worry, nothing to see here.
And the companies involved with Skolkovo are donating to the Clinton Foundation too.
Conspiracy theory.
No worries.
Now you may say, okay, we got uranium one.
We got Clinton, Russia, what they're hiding.
How does this transfer into the whole spy gate thing?
As I told you, ladies and gentlemen, all of this stuff is related.
I'll get to that.
I'm going to take one final break for a sponsor, but I will get to that one.
The capstone on the capstone.
Finally, today's show brought to you by DraftKings.
DraftKings, you like fantasy football?
DraftKings is for you.
Download the DraftKings app today.
A lot going on in the studio.
Can you believe it's conference championship week?
Ladies and gentlemen, we got some big matchups this week.
Big matchups in the NFL.
Time's up for two of the teams playing this weekend.
But you still have time to feed your fantasy fix with DraftKings, the leader in one-day fantasy football.
Draft your lineup.
Feel the sweat like never before.
Every run, every throw, every catch means more with the DraftKings lineup on the line.
It's really simple.
Just draft your lineup, stay under the salary cap, see how your team stacks up against the competition.
Nothing adds to the sweat of watching the game quite like having a free shot at over $750,000 with your first deposit.
Plus, for a limited time, all new and existing users can get a deposit bonus up to $500.
That's some extra cash to play with throughout the playoffs.
Download the DraftKings app today and use code BONGINO, B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
For a limited time, both new and existing users can get a deposit bonus up to $500 on your next deposit.
New users, be sure to enter code BONGINO, B-O-N-G-I-N-O during signup You'll also get a free shot at over $750,000 with your first deposit.
That's code Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
And you can get a deposit bonus up to $500 only at DraftKings.
Minimum $5 deposit required.
Deposit bonus requires a 25 times playthrough.
Eligibility restrictions apply.
See draftkings.com for details.
Okay.
Tying this bad boy up for you.
How, again, all these people know each other.
It's all one big anti-Trump scandal.
They not only all know each other, but they all need each other to pipe down.
Don't talk about Skolkovo.
Why?
The army did.
The army seemed concerned about Skolkovo.
No, no, we can't say that.
That would reflect poorly on the Clintons and their relationships with the Skolkovo people and the Clinton Foundation.
Shh!
Quiet down!
So who else supported the Skolkovo project and was associated with it?
That the army was very concerned about after the Clintons loved this thing.
Well, let's go to this Reuters article.
This is really fascinating here.
Police search offices of Russian Prime Minister's pet project.
What were they talking about?
Oh, nothing here.
Just Skolkovo, folks.
From the Reuters piece.
Not only was Skolkovo a problem here, apparently it was even a problem in Russia.
I'll talk about Skolkovo.
Quote, Reuters.
Federal investigators said the search of the foundation's central Moscow offices were part of an investigation into embezzlement, suspected embezzlement, of state funds at Skolkovo, which is headed by Viktor Vekselberg, one of Russia's richest men.
Pay attention.
Pay attention.
This is where it gets even better.
Deputy Prime Minister Vladislav Surkov Surkov, some of you are getting it, a former Kremlin aide, backed the Skolkovo Foundation's leadership and condemned what he said were efforts to politicize the investigation.
So now we know about Vekselberg, Clinton pal, who was involved with Skolkovo.
Clinton wanted to meet with him, send an email, I need to meet with this guy, while I meet with the Iranian one guy too, and I collect my $500,000 check.
Joe, same guy, same guy, for those of you who watched yesterday's show.
You do it better than I do, which is a shame.
Yes, it is.
And we know it was not only supported by Vekselberg.
It was also supported by this guy Surkov, who was a Putin aide.
Vladislav Surkov.
Surkov.
Where have we heard that name before?
Yeah.
This is really crazy talk now.
So Christopher Steele, of course, who went and met with the State Department, the Spygate dossier alleged author, gave an interview to the State Department talking about his sources.
And the woman who interviewed with him, Kathleen Kavalec from the State Department, took notes.
And here are the notes of what Steele told the State Department about who his, quote, sources were.
So we circled one, Trebnikov, who was a Russian intel guy.
Wait, wait, wait.
Steele says he was colluding with a Russian intel guy.
Apparently told Kaval like that.
But look at the name underneath that.
If you can make that out in the handwriting, if you want to see the visuals, youtube.com slash Bongino.
Isn't this crazy, Joe?
Zerkov?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Isn't that bizarre?
How'd that get there?
Just nuts.
I don't know.
I have no idea, but no idea.
Joe put it in.
He edited the show deceptively.
Deceptive editing.
Folks, those are Kathleen Kavalec from the U.S.
State Department that Hillary Clinton used to run.
Her own notes in October of 2016 as she's interviewing the guy who allegedly made up the dossier.
Because I don't believe Steele was the only one involved in the Steele dossier, as you well know.
So the guy who creates the document used to spy on Trump is suggesting one of his sources is Vladislav Surkov?
The same guy involved with the Skolkovo project, even under investigation in Russia?
The Skolkovo project Hillary Clinton promoted that the army thinks is an intel project to steal our intel to create weapons to kill us with.
I'm just saying!
Kavalech's notes, not mine!
Again, thankfully Joe had his tinfoil cap, he was kind enough to fashion for us today.
Thank you.
Because it's all a big conspiracy theory, folks.
It's all made up.
It's right-wing conspiracy theories.
Those right-wingers, they're crazy.
So, of course there are alternative explanations here because we do facts here, Joe.
Maybe Steele was lying about his sources?
But do you see how that creates an alternate problem for the Democrats?
So let's go with option one.
Steele isn't lying.
So one of your sources is a guy involved with a corrupt project in Russia, allegedly used to steal our military technology to kill us.
By the way, a project supported by Hillary Clinton who was paying Christopher Steele?
We would call that a motive.
Maybe we can use that guy's info to make Trump go away so he doesn't find out about what we did in Skolkovo.
No, no, that would only be a motive in a Barney Miller episode, right?
Because there are no investigative journalists out there, of course.
On the left side of the spectrum.
So that option sounds pretty bad, right, Joe?
Holy crap, Zirkoff was your source?
The same guy involved with Skolkovo?
Pretty bad, yeah.
The Hillary Clinton thing?
That's bad.
You may say, well, let's give him an out.
Steele was a liar.
Steele was lying.
This is other people.
Let's just speculate.
Steele's lying.
Sterkhoff wasn't one of us.
So he was just puffing his chest.
Creates kind of a bigger problem, doesn't it?
What's the problem?
Obviously, the Democrats have told us for two years Trump was colluding with the Russians based on this impeccable source, Christopher Steele, who had the best sources in Russia imaginable.
So now you're saying the whole thing was made up?
Okay, so alternative one, Hillary was involved with a Skolkovo project and Russian espionage, and their source to take down Trump was the same guy involved with the project, Surkov?
Wow, that's bad.
Or option two, you fabricated an entire dossier based on a source you knew was crap and spied on the president and his campaign because of it?
I'm not messing with you, Joe, when I tell you I seriously don't know which one of those options is more damaging.
I don't.
I'm not kidding.
Yeah.
It's like one sucks and one really sucks.
Well, which one?
I don't know because they both really suck.
I have no idea.
The suck factor is high on both of them.
No idea which one sucks worse.
None.
I'm not kidding.
So you spied on a presidential campaign based on a lie you knew was a lie because you knew your source was lying about Russian sources, or you used a Russian source involved with a Russian espionage project Hillary Clinton was intimately involved with.
Crazy talk, man.
It's all a big conspiracy theory.
Idiots.
Again, please, to Roswell, Rachel, and all the leftist nutjobs out there, Debunk anything I just told you.
Did Steele not say Sirkoff was one of his sources?
Let me even be more precise.
Did Kavalech not write down that Steele indicated?
Precision matters.
Sirkoff was one.
Did he not?
Do you think I made that up?
Has anyone disputed those notes?
Do you deny Serkov was involved in Skolkovo that was under investigation even in Russia?
Do you deny that the army had suspicions about what Skolkovo was up to?
Do you deny Bill Clinton collected a $500,000 check from a bank involved in Russia when he wanted to meet with the Skolkovo head?
Those emails don't exist?
You're suggesting that's a lie?
Do you deny Hillary was promoting Skolkovo?
And suggesting companies join Skolkovo?
Despite the fact that those companies were donating to the Clinton Foundation and there were severe concerns about Skolkovo?
Please tell me what part of that is false.
We'll wait.
Of course we can't.
You'll never...
[grunt]
[whisper]
Alright.
What else do we got?
It's gonna be the last story of the week, but I gotta get to this.
Some of you are wondering, like, why didn't he mention Comey yet?
I was.
It's just... It's Jim Comey and the guys... I don't know who's more corrupt, him or Brennan.
It's kind of like I don't know which story's worse than that last segment.
I don't know who's more corrupt, Comey or Brennan.
Seriously.
But Comey, you see the story at the Washington Examiner, Jim Comey is apparently under investigation again for a potentially devastating leak of what was thought to be Russian intel.
I just want to give you the quick backstory on this, but I want to have Trey Gowdy set it up first.
This was Trey Gowdy on, I believe Martha McCallum on Fox News.
In a nutshell, Comey's under investigation again by the Department of Justice for allegedly leaking Russian intel to a media outlet.
Gowdy, as you can see by this Washington Examiner headline by Dan Chatelain, apparently has some inside info on this.
He was on Martha McCallum last night, kind of summing it up.
I'll explain to you what's really going on in a nutshell, so you know.
Check this out.
This story that's just sort of coming out from the New York Times, that there's another investigation into Jim Comey leaking, and that it's coming from the DOJ.
The New York Times says, essentially, this is a leak that happened a long time ago.
Usually those are followed up on right away, and they suggest that there could be some political motivation in this investigation.
Any thoughts on that, Trey?
You know, Martha, I am not a fan of Jim Comey, but I am a fan of being fair.
And I know the fact pattern that is referenced in this story.
And Jim Comey was asked behind closed doors in a classified setting to address it, and he would not do it.
His response was it was so highly classified, he wasn't even going to tell people that were cleared to hear it.
In a classified setting.
So let the record be clear, I'm not a fan of Jim Comey's, but I am a fan of being fair to people.
And I'm not going to indict him or convict him based on New York Times reporting.
And my experience with him on this very fact pattern, the subject of the article, he would not address it even in a setting where he could do so.
And it would have benefited him to do so, and he still did not do it.
Okay, folks, what's really going on here?
Let me distill this down.
What they're talking about, the alleged leak by Komiya, this Russian intel to the New York Times, which by the way, oddly was reported by the New York Times.
It's just like, why are you reporting?
You should be able to know if they leaked it to you or not, right?
I mean, it's pretty simple.
Here's the problem.
The Russian intel he leaked is believed to be a fake.
You remember the infamous July 5th press conference Jim Comey gave?
Yeah.
Where he went out there and laid out Hillary Clinton's crimes and at the end said, well, no reasonable prosecutor.
Remember?
Everybody remembers that, right?
Yeah.
Well, the consensus is that Comey gave that press conference because he got suckered because he's not that smart.
Or he didn't want to be that smart.
In other words, he was winking and nodding.
By a piece of fake Russian intel.
It was supposedly a Russian intercept of emails between Democrats, uh, influential Democrats about Loretta Lynch.
Follow me.
It's a little complicated, but I think you'll get it.
Okay.
These Democrat operatives in these emails that the Russians supposedly intercepted and Comey had were emails involving Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others where supposedly they're like, Hey, listen, don't worry.
Hillary Clinton's gonna be exonerated.
Lynch is in on it.
That's the gist of it.
Comey's apparently reading this.
Look what the Russians got.
We're in real trouble, Jim.
The Democrats are colluding to make this thing go away.
Here's the problem, ladies and gentlemen.
It is believed by just about every intelligence professional to have been a fake.
It was a fake.
It wasn't real.
The Russian intel was not real.
Emails never happened, according to a lot of the intel professionals.
Or at least those emails they got.
You get it?
It was a fake.
Yeah.
So Comey, in an effort, I believe, to preemptively clear Hillary Clinton, thinking this was going to get out later because the Russians had it.
In other words, it would get out after Hillary.
Remember, everybody thinks Hillary is going to be elected president.
Yep.
Follow me here.
Curveballs.
Jim Comey is a Hillary Clinton bootlicker.
He thinks this Russian intel will get out after the election and tarnish the Clinton presidency.
He thinks the Russians have these emails about the Democrats colluding to make Hillary's email investigation go away.
They don't have emails.
It's a fake.
So Comey gives the July 5th press conference, I believe, in an effort to clear the deck on Hillary, get all the information out there, and put pressure on Lynch, but giving Lynch an out.
In other words, by saying at the end, no reasonable prosecutor, which wasn't his job, by the way.
He's an investigator, not a prosecutor anymore.
He was working with the FBI, not the DOJ.
No reasonable prosecutor would prosecute this case.
He takes the pressure then off Loretta Lynch, who then comes out and says, I'm just going to follow Jim Comey's advice.
We're dropping this.
All right.
With you.
Clears the deck for Hillary.
Because then they can go back and say, after she wins, hey, we put all the information out there.
Look, I gave a 20 minute press conference.
It's all out there.
What's the problem?
The reason he gave the presser was because he thought the information was going to come out in Russian emails that were fake.
Comey now is believed to have allegedly leaked some of that fake Russian intel to the media people.
It's the same intel he's telling Gowdy and his oversight committee when he was up there.
I am not talking about this even though you're cleared because it's quote, highly classified.
It's BS, folks.
Why did Jim Comey not want to talk about it to Gowdy?
And Gowdy knows this, I'm sure.
Because Comey at this point knows he got taken for a fool because he's really not that bright.
And if he actually presented the fake Russian intel about the emails, someone would have said to him, Jim, did you actually check with the people involved in the emails to see if these were legit?
No, no, no, we just believe it.
We just believed it outright.
That's what's really going on behind the scenes.
Comey got embarrassed.
He tried to hide it like he always does.
Then there's a belief he may have leaked it.
And I'm hearing a story out there that they may have given it to people up on the hill, too.
The fake Russian intel.
You may say, why?
Gowdy just said they couldn't get it.
This is what I'm hearing.
I'm just saying it's out there.
They wouldn't formally give it to them, because then Comey would have to take credit for getting hosed.
But supposedly, key people leaked it to people up on the hill.
To do what, Joe?
Again, according to the allegations.
In the media out there.
So then later on, if these things surfaced in the New York Times, they could say, Hey, we didn't give him, must've come from Capitol Hill.
They had it too.
Oh, it's just out there.
It's how you may read it.
Just put it out there.
All right, it's been a really busy week.
Thanks for everything, folks.
Really appreciate it.
Our listenership was just crazy this week.
We had a record banner week for viewers, downloads.
It's been great.
Please, please, I ask you to subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino, youtube.com slash Bongino.
