Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 23, 2020 - The Dan Bongino Show

48:05

Interview With Tom Fitton (Ep 1165)

In this episode, I interview Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton. We discuss some explosive aspects of the Spygate case, the Clinton email scandal, and the impeachment fiasco. Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
	Welcome to Dan Bongino's show.
	It's my interview show with, I'm really excited about this interview.
	I'm excited about all our interviews, but this one is with Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch.
	You've probably seen him on Fox News.
	Many of you follow him on Twitter.
	He is at Tom Fitton, F-I-T-T-O-N.
	As you know, I always record these intros afterwards because I want to let you know what's coming for you.
	Ladies and gentlemen, this is a terrific interview.
	Tom Hammers at one point, a connection between Hillary Clinton, Spygate, the Ukrainian scandal in the State Department, that I have to be honest was even a little bit underreported on my show, even though Spygate, Mueller, and Ukraine have been a big focus of our show for the last year.
	He hits that.
	He also talks about an update, me and him, about the Obama linkage to this entire thing that I think is going to surprise you.
	You're going to love this interview.
	It runs about 35-40 minutes.
	You're going to really like it.
	All right, before we get to it, today's show brought to you by Buddies at Duke Cannon.
	Ladies and gentlemen, fact is, most New Year's resolutions don't last.
	Because dramatic self-improvement is hard.
	That's why Duke Canon, the Duke, we love the Duke, one of our favorite sponsors, their supply company wants you to consider lowering your expectations this year with the moderate self-improvement box.
	Yes, it's a one-step program to achieving a slightly better version.
	A few.
	The box is packed with over $80 of premium American-made grooming goods for dudes, for men, designed to help you feel, look, and smell just a bit better in 2020.
	You like this?
	Look at this, Ducan.
	This is one of my favorites.
	The Big American Bourbon Soap.
	This is their big-ass brick of soap right here.
	I love this stuff.
	You got solid cologne going right here.
	Notice it's partially used.
	Date night in the house.
	You know what I mean?
	This stuff, you want to smell like manhood?
	This is it.
	Duke Canada.
	Get their moderate self-improvement box.
	Usually $84.
	Now $50 for limited time.
	You'll stink less with their Trench Warfare dry ice body powder.
	Six ounces.
	Uses activated charcoal to deodorize.
	Their Trench Warfare antiperspirant and deodorant.
	The clean, subtle scent of fresh air, with a masculine, woodsy base, better hair, their News Anchor Pomar hair wash, their Cedar and Sandalwood scent, decent hands, their Bloody Knuckles hand repair balm, unscented so your hands don't smell like flowers.
	You get a cleaner face with their Working Man's Face Wash, light citrus scent made with vitamin C to fight fatigue and scurvy!
	And the big-ass brick of soap.
	There's one of them right there.
	Look at that.
	That's not a brick to build a house.
	That's a man's soap right there.
	Smell like manhood.
	It's a one-time offer.
	It's not a subscription box, folks.
	It's just $50 with free shipping to the lower 48 states.
	All products are Tested by active duty military personnel.
	5% of net profits are donated to causes benefiting veterans and active duty military.
	This is one of my favorite sponsors.
	Duke Cannon prides itself in making its grooming goods work as hard as you do.
	They are champions of builders, farmers, soldiers, sledgehammers, teachers, first responders, holders of doors, and fixers of toilets.
	And they want you to feel right at home in Duke Cannon country.
	Visit dukecannon.com D-U-K-E.
	Cannon.
	C-A-N-N-O-N dot com.
	Use the promo code Bongino for 15% off your entire order.
	That's Duke.
	Cannon dot com.
	And use promo code Bongino for 15% off your entire order.
	Go today.
	Smell like manhood and victory.
	All right.
	Today's show also brought to you by another one of my favorite sponsors here, because I get compliments about this all the time.
	Vincero.
	Yes.
	People ask me all the time on email, Dan, I'm not kidding.
	I get this all the time.
	Where'd you get that awesome watch?
	This is the Chrono S by Vincero.
	If you're spending $10,000 on a watch that looks worse than this watch, you're making a huge mistake.
	Let me show you something right here about Vincero.
	That's what I love about this company.
	These are, people are going to think you spent like, you could have bought a car for what you bought.
	Look at the weight on that bad boy.
	Look at that.
	Look at the back.
	Marble finish in the back.
	High quality leather.
	Look at the front.
	Look at the distinct deep blue face with that fine leather band.
	This is what Vincero is all about.
	Some of my favorite watches out there are all Vincero watches.
	The Altitude, the Chrono S. I love them.
	I get asked about this watch all the time.
	With the new year, get started on improving yourself.
	No one knows that better than one of my favorite sponsors, Vincero.
	They know how important it is to look good and feel your best.
	Stay motivated, folks.
	Look your best with a Vincero watch.
	Head over to vincerowatches.com slash Bongino.
	Check out my favorite picks.
	I'll be honest with you, the Altitude and the Chronos right here are some of my faves.
	Absolutely love them.
	They don't have a bad-looking watch.
	It's only degrees of greatness with Vincero.
	Use my special checkout code.
	Remember, use promo code BONGINO for a special discount.
	Vincero understands the frustration of online shopping.
	They get it.
	They make it easy as possible for you.
	They offer free shipping, 30-day returns.
	You'll never return it.
	And it guarantees your watch for two years.
	My watches last forever.
	I beat the snot out of these things and they are still ticking.
	These things travel.
	I throw them in TSA dump and they're still going.
	Beautiful.
	High-end.
	People are going to say, where'd you get that watch?
	What'd you spend?
	$20,000 for that watch?
	No, I'm not an idiot.
	I got this.
	What's the best watch out there for a great price?
	It's stress-free shopping with fair and honest prices.
	When you put it on, you immediately know you got more than what you paid for.
	It's the best value for your money, guaranteed.
	You're not going to find a finer watch.
	Stop wasting your money.
	That's why Vincero is over 20,000.
	20,000, not 2,000 five-star reviews on their site.
	You can read it for yourself, or you can buy one, check it out, and you'll see why they have 20,000 five-star reviews.
	I won't wear another watch.
	Dates, interviews, weddings, nights out, interviews, you want to be the one that stands out.
	And with this watch, you will look it.
	I'm telling you right now, don't overpay for a watch that looks cheap and disappoints.
	This is a watch which is extremely cost-effective, that looks fantastic and never disappoints.
	It's a timepiece you will use forever.
	Look at the weight on that bad boy.
	This is something to help you look and feel incredible.
	You're prepared to take on your day and accomplish everything you did.
	Go to vincerowatches.com.
	V-I-N-C-E-R-O-W-A-T-C-H-E-S dot com forward slash Bongino.
	Use my discount code Bongino for a discount at checkout.
	Do not pay full price on these beautiful timepieces.
	Use my code Bongino at checkout at vincerowatches.com forward slash Bongino vincerowatches.com forward slash Bongino promo code Bongino.
	All right, folks, without further ado, my interview with Tom Fitton.
	You know, I put out a solicitation to my audience a while ago.
	I said, listen, if you have any ideas for great guests on the Dan Bongino interview series, I would love to hear them.
	And one of those people that was frequently mentioned in email correspondence is my good friend, Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch, a warrior for the cause of liberty and freedom.
	Tom, thank you for spending some time with us here today.
	I really appreciate it.
	I really appreciate all the work Judicial Watch does.
	Hey Dan, I appreciate your leadership as well.
	Thank you for that.
	Oh, you got it.
	But now, if you want to follow Tom, folks, he has a book out, by the way, Clean House, which I highly recommend you pick up.
	We'll link to it in the show notes for this.
	And he is at Tom Fitton, F-I-T-T-O-N, on Twitter.
	Give him a follow.
	You will not regret it.
	Some of his videos are absolutely priceless.
	I know a lot of you watch them already.
	So, Tom, I have a lot I want to cover with you.
	So, in the interest of time, let's get right to it here.
	So you were one of the first people, you and your organization, to report on the goings-on in Ukraine and the activities of Marie Yovanovitch, which the Democrats are trying to boomerang back on us, which they always do, and this monitoring list and this crowd tangle.
	And I found this story fascinating that our ambassador to Ukraine under the Obama administration, and for a period under the Trump administration, Seemed overly concerned with the communications of a lot of people, their social media.
	I was on that list as well.
	Can you give us an update on that?
	I follow you and I know you've been all over this story.
	What's going on with that and how serious was this?
	Well, it began, it looks like, back in March of last year when there was increasing pressure on her politically because of her evidently anti-Trump activities at the Ukrainian embassy there.
	So our information is that she directed her staff to start monitoring people that evidently were criticizing her, given the nature of the list.
	You're on it, Sean Hannity's on it, Rudy Giuliani's on it, Donald Trump Jr.' 's on it.
	He mentioned her around that time as well in his Twitter feed.
	And the problem is, you can't have government officials, certainly in the embassy in Ukraine, start monitoring even public statements by Americans and start compiling records on them.
	It violates the Privacy Act, in addition to who knows how many other laws.
	It was such a big project, Dan.
	They asked for help from the State Department here in D.C., and that's when they said, you can't do this.
	It's against the law.
	So we don't know if it stopped or not.
	We started asking questions under FOIA.
	We alerted people that this issue was out there.
	Certainly, she was questioned on it.
	She denied doing what we alleged.
	Although she kind of admitted there was concern and they wanted to monitor what was going on.
	So we've asked for the documents.
	And sure enough, the Deep State State Department has ignored our requests.
	And so we've had to sue in federal court.
	And it's just really interesting.
	The State Department is slow rolling virtually anything that might help President Trump in his impeachment fight.
	Yeah, you know what's fascinating about this case is there's this constant cry by the left that, oh, this Deep State stuff, it's all a conspiracy theory, yet the work you've done at Judicial Watch, which has been incredible, and a lot of others, John Solomon, Sarah Carter, Sean Hannity, and others, we keep being proven right on this case, and the actual Deep Staters claiming we're the conspiracy theorists keep face-planting and looking foolish in the end.
	I'm just curious, how did you guys come across this monitoring list with Yovanovitch?
	Because I believe there was a lot going on in Ukraine and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
	But was this in just the course of one of the Judicial Watch voyeurs you guys do for government accountability?
	How did you come across this story?
	No, we had sources.
	So this was a source story.
	This is reporting, the sort of reporting that the media used to pretend to be interested in doing.
	And so we followed up with Freedom of Information Act investigation.
	And we know Congress has the same information.
	They asked questions about it.
	So these documents are sitting right over there in the State Department.
	They could have been released back in October when we first asked for it, but of course now it's January and nothing's still been released.
	And in the meantime, this ambassador is being promoted as a hero, as opposed to someone who may have been involved in efforts to thwart the president's policies in Ukraine, And certainly the allegation is, based on the reporting we have, is that she was telling people to start monitoring Americans who may have been critical of her.
	And these were the search terms they wanted to tie the monitoring to.
	I think it was Giuliani.
	Biden, Soros, and of course, Yovanovitch.
	Fascinating.
	And they were using this CrowdTangle, and CrowdTangle is the program that was being used.
	It's not readily accessible to the public, at least in the professional version of it, and of course, you know, the Soros operation is involved in helping create the group that doles out permissions to use it.
	Do you have any information at Judicial Watch about the infamous do not prosecute information, whether it was a list, a letter, a statement?
	But John Solomon has some pretty extensive reporting on this, involving George Kent and Marie Yovanovitch, and Solomon has been very well sourced in the beginning.
	I believe it's yet to be proven wrong on just about anything involving this.
	But this is a fascinating angle too, because according to Solomon's reporting, Some of the pressure applied by Yovanovitch and Kent in Ukraine from our embassy overseas on their soil was to lay off prosecutions of people who were connected to liberal mega-donor George Soros through groups and through surrogate groups he had.
	That's kind of a big story and the story, if true, a lot of evidence indicates that it is, that used to be the kind of scoop media folks used to relish.
	Now again you're called a conspiracy theorist for just exposing the truth.
	You guys have any information on that?
	Yeah, we've sued for records about it.
	Ianovich has denied that she presented a list to anyone in the Ukrainian government, and the official said, look, you know, I don't know what the translation was, list or whatever.
	All I know is she told me that I couldn't prosecute or shouldn't be prosecuting.
	Uh, these folks associated with the Soros group, for instance, and some others in Ukraine.
	And that's why we've asked for documents about that.
	And once again, the State Department's slow rolling these documents.
	You know, what's happening now, uh, uh, Dan, is that you've got the State Department sitting on a mother load of documents.
	That would expose that the president was right to be concerned about Ukraine, there was corruption there, and they're slow rolling it on purpose.
	For instance, we asked for the Biden for documents about the firing of Shokin.
	At the admitted behest of Joe Biden.
	We've sued back last year about it.
	They told us they can't even finish searching for the documents until the end of January.
	This is what we're facing here.
	And the president, if I were him, I'd order the State Department to stop with the gainsmanship and release the records immediately.
	And he's got to save himself in this regard, in my view, because relying on the agencies to do the right thing, that's not going to work.
	Now for the audience, I know a lot of you are already familiar with the backstory.
	Forgive me, I jumped kind of right in with Tom, assuming all of you know the backstory here.
	But really, Ukraine, there's a lot that happened in Ukraine in the last election.
	There are allegations of coordination between former DNC officials and key Ukrainians in an effort to interfere in the 2016 election against Donald Trump.
	Of course, many of you know about the allegations against Joe Biden, as Tom just indicated.
	On tape, pressuring for a prosecutor to be fired.
	The prosecutor's investigating a company, Burisma, his son is working for, for a very lucrative package to sit on a board.
	I've hypothesized, Tom, for a while that the attacks, the current attacks on the president, they're all interrelated, these attacks, but the latest attacks are just, as Tucker Carlson says often, you know, an effort to accuse the Republicans and the president of what the Democrats are actually doing themselves.
	And I believe this is all a myth, a fairy tale, these invented quid pro quo charges to distract from the Joe Biden-Biden family malfeasance and some of the malfeasance in Ukraine.
	And one of them which I want to go to now is, you know, we already have, Tom, I know you followed Spygate extensively.
	Spygate, I believe, is connected to the Ukrainian scandal because one of the players in it, Nelly Orr, who was working for Fusion GPS, Hired by Hillary Clinton to gin up information on Trump, largely which turned out to be false, has already admitted on the record that she got information from a Ukrainian parliamentarian.
	Now, he denies it, Leshenko, but she's never corrected her statement as far as I know.
	I mean, isn't that the very definition of foreign collusion or am I missing something?
	Oh, you're exactly right.
	And we have the documents Nellie Orr laundered through her husband to the FBI and the Justice Department to try to get Trump.
	Ukraine appears a hundred plus times in those documents.
	So Ukraine, people should remember, Ukraine was the fulcrum upon which Russiagate was used to try to take down President Trump.
	Manafort had these connections in Ukraine with pro-Russian forces.
	The anti-Russian forces in Ukraine hated that, and so they saw a political reason to collude with Trump's opponents, Hillary Clinton, to try to make Trump look bad by exposing Manafort.
	And then the Department of Justice and the FBI and Mueller, to take out Trump further, wanted to use the Ukraine connections that Manafort had, information supplied to them by the Ukrainian government in part, to take out Trump.
	So the idea that Ukraine had nothing to do with 2016 is fantasy.
	Um, and, uh, we, and, and the media was even pushing us.
	We just got documents down.
	You wouldn't believe them, Dan.
	They have, um, I've been calling you Don, I just realized.
	Everybody does it.
	It's the Bon Geno.
	It screws up everyone.
	Don't even, I've only known you forever, but don't worry about it.
	Uh, yeah, that's fine.
	So the associated, I make no apologies.
	I do the same with my kids.
	So the Associated Press, they have two reporters go over and meet with Andrew Weissman's gang and Weissman himself.
	They give Weissman the code to the storage locker of Paul Manafort, and they had the Ukraine ledger, and the AP was pushing, literally, the reporters were pushing for a prosecution, it looks like, of Manafort based on his Ukrainian connections.
	So you had the reporters pushing this Ukraine angle, you had the Ukrainians pushing the Ukraine angle, and then of course you had Hillary Clinton working directly with Ukrainians to go after Trump.
	So, but now we're not allowed to talk about Ukraine because it gets in the way of the impeachment narrative.
	And the fact that, you know, President Trump was asking the right questions and he's being targeted for asking questions.
	In my view, this whole impeachment sham, The coup attack, whatever you want to call it, it also is an obstruction of justice because they want to freeze the Justice Department from going after Biden, from going after Clinton and the rest of those involved in the illicit spying on President Trump.
	And the fact they're getting the time of day in the Senate to me is just an outrage.
	No, you know, Tom, I couldn't agree with you more.
	And what I find particularly frustrating, I think your assessment at the end there about the freeze portion of what you said is absolutely accurate and very precise.
	And it's true.
	What they did worked.
	And this is what I find frustrating.
	I'm hoping it doesn't work over the long term.
	I'm hoping President Trump is reelected.
	Eventually the truth comes out and justice is served.
	All we have is hope.
	I mean, we sound hyperbolic or dramatic, but, you know, I love the country and I'm just not willing to give up.
	But what they did in conjunction with the media, who has entirely abdicated their role, if it was not for organizations like Judicial Watch, excuse me, where you are now, judicialwatch.org, folks, if you want to check them out, we would never have had the truth here because the media has shown a complete A lack of, and not only a lack of, I'm being nice, a willingness to be, Tom, and correct me if you don't agree, to be part of the scandal, to actively advocate on behalf of the debunked conspiracy theories with no evidence, and then in turn refuting some of their own reporting.
	I'll just give you two quick examples.
	Politico, I know you know the story, it's like beating a dead horse, but some of the audience may not.
	Politico's Ken Vogel already reported about over a year ago about the Ukrainian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
	Anybody can go and look at that article now and yet the media acts like it doesn't exist and it's never been rescinded.
	And secondly, With regards to Spygate, it's interesting.
	If you go back and look at CNN, Jim Sciutto and Pamela Brown already wrote articles about the Obama administration's efforts to basically work with the United Kingdom and others to gather information about the Trump team.
	I mean, these are two textbook examples by liberal-leaning outlets of foreign collusion, and yet the media, Tom, acts like none of this exists anymore and just moves along and wipes their hands of it.
	It's amazing.
	Well, in many ways they are co-conspirators.
	I talked about the Associated Press was actually activist in terms of trying to get Manafort and obviously Trump prosecuted and Trump embarrassed.
	To an degree, they knowingly publish classified information illegally leaked to them.
	They're co-conspirators.
	There is no exemption in the laws, best I can tell, for media publishing classified information.
	It's illegal for that to happen, too.
	And so, they're witnesses to these crimes.
	In the least, they're witnesses.
	And I really think the media these days, to a degree, I mean, we should just understand there are liberal advocacy groups that sometimes do journalism.
	And when it comes to reporting on the swamp, Judicial Watch does as much significant journalism as the New York Times and the Washington Post.
	In many ways, it's more honest.
	And certainly, we don't rely on illegal leaks to get the information.
	You know, and Tom, one of the things I think the general public doesn't know about your group, Judicial Watch, is it's not a partisan group.
	You guys have been going after government malfeasance in administrations that are Republican and Democrat for a long time.
	People don't understand that.
	And when I first met you, I kind of did some homework on what you guys have been.
	You guys have been involved in government malfeasance for a long time.
	You know, so this isn't about, I know everybody associates that you guys with partisanship now only because it's the Trump era and they want to attack you, but your group really is a government accountability group and always has been.
	I'm not wrong in my assessment, right?
	I mean, the people can just look it up.
	No one sued the Trump administration, dare I say it, more than Judicial Watch.
	I mean, that's a fact.
	I mean, we're suing the Trump administration.
	We've complained about the lack of transparency by the agencies run by people that we all kind of like generally or personally.
	But when it comes to transparency and obeying the rule of law on the Freedom of Information Act, the Trump administration in many ways has been worse than the Obama administration.
	And I'm sure the president's furious about it, but that's the reality.
	They're protecting Hillary Clinton.
	They're protecting the Obama gang.
	And right now, they're protecting Joe Biden and helping move along this impeachment effort, this seditious impeachment effort, this coup, to remove the president.
	Tom, on that note, because I know the President's trying to get to the bottom of this, a lot of this stuff, I hate that term, it's beyond cliched, but I know he is.
	Do you feel as I feel that This is really, I mean, this is the epitome of the deep state that he has entrenched bureaucrats.
	Let's put skin on, anybody can say deep state, but let's put skin on the bones here and talk about what it really is.
	I believe, having worked in the government myself and having seen it, sadly, up close and personal, You have these bureaucrats that think their job is some kind of a sinecure, like it's a fiefdom, and their department is their department, and they're going to run it, and they really don't care.
	And the president, although very powerful, obviously he's the president of the United States, what I think people aren't aware of, and you better than anyone being at Judicial Watch, The president doesn't have the time to follow up on every single FOIA you guys put in and every single department head of every single cabinet agency.
	He's relying on surrogates in these agencies through the delegation of executive power to say, hey, get this out.
	Let's clean this mess up.
	But I guess what I'm asking you is, are these deep staters, are they slow walking all of this?
	Just waiting for President Trump, hopefully to lose this election to celebrate and say, look, we got him.
	I mean, we're just going to ignore this guy, hoping he gets, you know, he doesn't get reelected in 2020 and we're just going to wait him out.
	Yeah, there's that casual sedition, as I call it, everyday actions by members of the permanent government, the alt-government, as I call it.
	They see themselves as a government and waiting for their next friendly Democrat or leftist to come in.
	But the leadership of the agencies needs to take ownership on this issue.
	They all know about this FOIA issue.
	They all know about this transparency issue.
	And they don't want to take the strong action necessary to confront the agency's slow rolling of it.
	These are political decisions by the leadership of the agencies not to follow the law and obstruct our efforts.
	I mean, we were in court less than I was about three weeks ago.
	Dan, and there were six lawyers from the Justice Department and State Department in there defending Hillary Clinton, trying to shut down our case on the emails.
	This is a decision that, you know, Attorney General Barr needs to take ownership here.
	Secretary Pompeo needs to take ownership here.
	Every time they talk and they make excellent presentations, you know, but we see the results on the ground, where the rubber meets the road, and I'm not seeing much in the way of results.
	You know, on that topic, if we can kind of switch gears to that.
	So John Huber, the United States attorney who, I don't know what he was supposed to be doing, investigating something.
	Who?
	Yeah, exactly.
	The audience is saying that too.
	That's the problem.
	He was supposed to be investigating the government malfeasance and the Clinton probe and everything else.
	Seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth.
	No one knows what he was doing.
	But there was recently a story that, oh, you know, don't worry, Hubert didn't find anything and Hillary Clinton didn't do anything wrong.
	I guess my question to you, having been all over this Clinton case for a long time now, the Combeda situation and the immunity deals, do you think there's ever going to be any justice in this and a real, sincere, top-to-bottom review of what happened here in this email debacle with Hillary Clinton?
	Not unless the president directly intervenes and appoints a special counsel.
	One of the outrages of this Justice Department is its continued defense of Hillary Clinton, its non-investigation of the various issues that not only arose during the Obama administration, but have continued to arise under the current administration.
	We found more evidence of criminal activity.
	And they're defending her.
	There's no doubt that they have zero interest in relooking at this case, despite the public interest in making sure there's some accountability.
	And if I were the president, I'd just say, look, you know, I'm going to appoint a special counsel.
	You guys obviously are afraid to deal with the bureaucracy here, and we need to reassure the public there's a fair investigation here.
	And there's more and more evidence it was unfair and it was a rigged investigation.
	The same time they were protecting Hillary, they were bending over backwards to target Trump illegally.
	And you can't understand the Russiagate scandal without understanding what was at stake for the Clintons and the whole gang there on the emails.
	As I said, it's about freezing the Justice Department.
	But also, unfortunately, the Justice Department is happy to be frozen when it comes to Hillary Clinton.
	Yeah, I just realized I lost myself before I didn't follow up with the audience.
	That freezing part is right, folks.
	I mean, what I think what Tom is suggesting and what I agree with him on is this effort by the Democrats with their media allies to constantly counterattack and accuse the Republicans of what they're doing.
	In fact, because Republicans, some up on the hill who don't have the guts to stand up, some do.
	There are a lot with the cojones to do it.
	Some don't.
	They stop.
	Instead of looking into Ukraine, which Tom and I discussed before, the Hillary email investigation, where we have known malfeasance, again, the degree of criminality, be open to investigation, we'll see if there is or isn't, but it's stopped because they fall into this media trap of, oh my gosh, you'll be accused of being political, or now that you've got to defend yourself against, I guess the best way to say it is, you know, I boxed for a long time, and they say the best defense in boxing is a good offense, because when you're punching the other guy, You don't have to worry about your defense.
	And this is what the Democrats do.
	And the fact that we have Republicans not willing to stand fast outside of the Devin Nunes and others, I think you're right, Tom.
	It freezes them in place and it's really disappointing.
	I just want to double down on something you said there, because I agree that you can't understand Spygate, Russiagate, Collusiongate, without understanding the Hillary email scandal.
	And one of the things that I've been talking about on my show often is, I don't really believe the Hillary email scandals about protecting Hillary.
	I never did.
	The media is not really crazy about Hillary.
	I believe it's always been about protecting Obama and therefore they have to protect Hillary.
	The reason is Obama was one of the people emailing Hillary Clinton and one of the things we know from our experience in government, mine specifically, Barack Obama has a blackberry that had to have been whitelisted for Hillary Clinton's email.
	Somebody had to whitelist that email so he could get emails from her.
	I want to know who on the staff, Obama's staff, said it was okay for Barack Obama to email a Clinton dot whatever email and not a State Department dot US whatever it is email.
	Somebody had to say it.
	Barack Obama's high-level staff.
	It's okay for you, the President of the United States, to email Hillary on our private server.
	There's no way around it.
	That's what I think they're really protecting with this guy.
	I don't think it's even about Hillary.
	I think it's about Obama.
	Well, I've always said it's a Hillary Clinton scandal, it's an FBI scandal, it's a DOJ scandal, it's a State Department scandal, and yes, it's Obama-White House scandal.
	You don't need to speculate, Dan.
	We know there are 19 email communications because we are litigating the issue between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that have been completely withheld from us and the American people.
	Many of those emails were sent and received around what time frame?
	The Benghazi attack.
	Secondly, Judicial Watch recently obtained through discovery evidence that the Obama White House Counsel's Office directed the State Department to lie about Hillary Clinton's emails to a requester who was looking for her emails.
	The White House is implicated in this scandal, and you're exactly right.
	It helps explain why Hillary's protected, because they're not only protecting her, they're protecting themselves.
	I mean, the court in our case in granting us discovery, he said, I want to know a few things here.
	I want to know, obviously, if Hillary Clinton used this to avoid FOIA, because this is a Benghazi case, we want to know.
	I want to know if the Justice Department And the State Department engaged in misconduct with the court here in trying to shut this case down before they told us about the emails.
	He wants to know if the emails are out there elsewhere.
	And fourthly, he wants to know, again, if Benghazi is one of the reasons they didn't want this information coming out.
	He's on to them.
	He's excoriating not the Justice Department of Obama, but this Justice Department that's still playing games in this area.
	I could go into detail after detail about the gamesmanship here, but your listeners would be outraged to learn not only are they coming to court to protect Hillary, but they're colluding with her lawyers against judicial watch in this litigation.
	I mean, we're not just facing the Justice Department and State Department.
	They're on the same side as Hillary.
	I mean, it's like they have a joint defense agreement.
	You want to know why the president gets frustrated?
	Because I'm sure he knows about stuff like this and he just can't believe it either.
	No, I can only imagine what an outsider like President Trump coming into this inefficient government morass of swamp rats, what he must be thinking when he's sitting in these rooms.
	It's got to be astonishing.
	We're talking to Tom Fitton.
	He is at Tom Fitton on Twitter.
	T-O-M-F-I-T-T-O-N, please.
	Follow Tom.
	His videos are great.
	Judicialwatch.org as well.
	And his book is Clean House.
	So Tom, one other thing on the Hillary investigation.
	I didn't plan on asking a lot of questions on this, but your organization, you're fascinating.
	You're a library of knowledge on it.
	And if you don't recall the details on this, that's fine.
	Because I'm kind of wishy-washy on it too.
	But one of the things I always found fascinating about this is I believe The Obama administration never claimed executive privilege on those emails.
	And again, if you don't remember the details, I'm kind of fuzzy on them too, but if I remember correctly, they didn't do that because if they did that, they would have had a claim that the emails had classified information.
	So they did some kind of like presidential end around.
	Do you remember this?
	Because I'm just thinking of that as we talk about Obama and Hillary.
	They're claiming what's called Presidential Communications Privilege, which is a subset of Executive Privilege, and that privilege can be asserted whether or not there's classified information.
	Communications between the President and his close advisors is covered by Executive Privilege generally.
	I don't know if it's covered here.
	Yeah, yeah, they didn't want to admit there was classified information.
	I specifically remember something about this on my show I covered a while ago, but let me move on because I just got a couple more things for you and I really appreciate it.
	You know, you're onto something here.
	We have testimony that the State Department was purposely underclassifying information in the Clinton email cache.
	Because, for obvious reasons, the more classified information in there, the greater the pressure for a prosecution.
	So, you know, I've been doing this a long time, and I remember reading a lot of Clinton emails and wondering myself, why is it they're releasing this?
	This is typically classified.
	Sure enough, there were concerns internally that it was purposeful to protect her.
	Yeah, which is fascinating given the foil effect and the contrast with the, excuse me, with the Spygate case where they're over classifying things like the price of a table.
	Remember the FBI table when Andy McCabe, they had to classify the price of the table and everybody was like, wait, what do you classify?
	So it really, it's just fascinating.
	It makes for a nice segue.
	So again, I do appreciate your time, but just on the Spygate case here.
	So Jim Comey, The level of Jim Comey malfeasance and misfeasance is just astounding.
	I mean, we've had this story this week about him maybe getting duped by fake Russian intelligence, duped into giving a press conference, which may have altered the trajectory of the election.
	This is obviously a story nobody wants out there.
	As I covered on my show this week, I don't even think the Trump team wants it out there.
	Because nobody wants the story out there that Jim Comey's press conference may have altered the election.
	I don't believe it did.
	I mean, Hillary Clinton couldn't find Wisconsin.
	But one of the things we were read into by a really quality source a while ago was that Jim Comey, absolutely no later than January of 2017, is briefed about interviews on steel subsources.
	Now, this has come out recently in the Horowitz Report as well.
	And my sources are telling me that he categorically knows, as of January of 2017, that the entire Spygate case is based on a hoax, this dossier, which is false.
	They've interviewed Steele's sub-sources, they know it's false.
	So I guess the question to you, and kind of open-ended, I'll throw it out there, is What the hell were they doing, DOJ and FBI, pushing for a special counsel, more DOJ I should say, specifically Rosenstein, pushing for a special counsel with Bob Mueller?
	If everybody read in on this pretty much already knows the case is a complete hoax, that this Russian collusion thing is an Aesop's fable.
	Well, there's no, as Horowitz said, there's no reasonable explanation for what went on here, but what he refused to say is that there was a political effort to abuse this process to get Trump.
	I mean, Comey himself said, as he described it to then President-elect Trump in that spy operation against him when he went and ambushed him with the dossier, it was salacious and unverified.
	The documents we have that we obtained Long before the IG report started talking about it, shows that they were desperate to get ore, because they had fired steel, they were using ore to get to steel.
	And what was that desperation flowing from?
	Because nothing was checking out!
	They were desperate to try to prove the case that there was this Russia collusion and wasn't checking out.
	That explains why they were using war in such an extraordinary and improper role as the link to steel in people like Simpson and his wife Nellie.
	Because it wasn't checking out.
	It didn't check out in 2016.
	They fired Steele.
	It still wasn't checking out, as the IG report highlighted, yet it was still being used, falsely, to try to remove the president from office and try to, as you point out, justify the appointment of a special counsel.
	It's all part of the coup.
	You know, look, the special counsel You have to remember who appointed special counsel.
	Rod Rosenstein.
	And he had a conversation, I call it the seven days in May in 2017.
	The president had fired Comey, and they went crazy.
	McCabe was angry.
	Rosenstein was angry.
	And they had a discussion.
	And what was three things in that discussion?
	It was all about removing the president.
	Let's wear a wire on him.
	Let's try to catch him in the Oval Office through an illegal wire.
	Let's lawlessly invoke the 25th Amendment and go around and organize a coup against him, practically speaking.
	And let's appoint a special counsel to try to destroy him.
	They didn't say it like that, but that was the context.
	Now, of those three things, what happened?
	The special counsel was appointed.
	It flowed out of this effort to overthrow the president.
	It wasn't a law enforcement action.
	Yeah.
	I mean, Tom, it's only the biggest political scandal in American history.
	And really, if not for the work of Judicial Watch, again, folks, judicialwatch.org.
	If you want to check out more of Tom and his organization's work over there, please do.
	And at Tom Fitton is his Twitter handle.
	I really, without you guys and some of the other entrepreneurial reporters out there who decided to act like journalists, we'd be lost.
	And, you know, Tom, there have been a lot of terrible, I mean, a lot of terrible reporters on the left-leaning media that have done an awful job promoting conspiracy theories here.
	You know, Brian Stelter and that crowd.
	But there have been some on the left that have actually done their homework.
	I mean, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald had a little bit of trouble this week, but even T.A.
	Franks a bit at the Washington Post, who's kind of shown an interest.
	There have been some who understand, I think, what's going on here.
	But what I find the most interesting angle to this case is, These were people, reporters, who supposedly years ago, you know, were supposed to be fighting for the little guy and the truth and against big monopolies and government monoliths and, you know, this was the Erin Brockovich crowd.
	We're against the big corporations.
	And now all of a sudden you have this monolithic intelligence enterprise being run by John Brennan.
	We know it was up to six different degrees of malfeasance, whether it was the Iran deal, spying on the Senate.
	I mean, these are facts.
	These are not conspiracy theories that have been reported even by left-leaning outlets, and they don't seem to care.
	And one of the big angles of this that I'd like to get your opinion on Is one of the ongoing evergreen theories in my show based on a whole lot of evidence, by the way, is although the FBI continued the spying operation on Trump after they know unquestionably that the dossier is a hoax, they know it no later than January 2017.
	I believe, and again based on a solid pile of evidence, that the FBI was misled initially into starting this thing.
	And the reason I say that, and I'd love to hear your opinion, is Brennan has constantly lied to the American public saying he hadn't seen the dossier until December.
	Well, we know that's not true because Brennan briefs Harry Reid up in the U.S.
	Senate in August, which is obviously before December, and the information Harry Reid sends on to the FBI to spur them on to investigating the Trump team in this letter Is only information that appeared in the dossier conveniently after Brennan's briefing.
	So two and two don't fit together, and I'll just throw one more point on this, again on my general theory that Brennan misled the FBI through Harry Reid to start this.
	When Lisa Page, in what I believe is a rare moment of honesty up on Capitol Hill, is questioned about the use of Christopher Steele by potentially the CIA and Brennan, By Mark Meadows.
	Paige seems genuinely confused.
	I mean, she really seems shocked.
	No, no, that's not possible.
	Steele was our guy.
	And Meadows is like, well, you know, he was talking to multiple people.
	She's like, well, we don't know that.
	And she seems confused.
	Do you buy into that, that Brennan could have been the puppet master here and could have been using some of Steele's source network?
	And that's why he keeps lying about, I didn't see the dossier till December?
	Well, I would take a step back further.
	I would, I think it's curious and we need to figure out who was operating prior to the opening crossfire hurricane.
	Because remember, Page was targeted for spying in April, I think, of 2015 or 16.
	Just a month after it was announced, long before Crossfire Hurricane.
	I think it goes, I call it the self-licking ice cream cone.
	You say the FBI was fooled.
	I think they were using their own sources or variations of their sources, like Misfood.
	Who knows who he was working for, but he was probably a Western intelligence asset.
	I think there's credible information there.
	Also, I have to say, it does come back to Hillary.
	I see Sidney Blumenthal, Cody Shearer behind a lot of this, and it's just they're laundering and re-laundering the information.
	When you look at the dossier, it had a thousand fathers.
	You had it laundered through McCain, you had it laundered, as you point out, you've got the Brennan connections, you had it pushed indirectly through Halper, and obviously they were pushing it.
	Then, on top of that, you had the State Department helping write portions of the dossier with Blumenthal, Scheer, and Steele.
	Tom, can you just quickly explain to the audience who Blumenthal and Scheer are?
	Because some of them may not know, because this is an important point you're making here.
	Your point is that Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are on this, and Blumenthal—Sheryl, go ahead.
	Yeah, this is a Blumenthal special.
	I'm convinced.
	I think when all the evidence comes out, you'll see a Blumenthal special here.
	Sidney Blumenthal is a Clinton associate.
	He worked in the Clinton White House, a disreputable figure that even President Obama didn't want.
	With Hillary Clinton at the State Department, so you'll see in her emails that you have these secret communications with Blumenthal that were so sensitive that when she forwarded them on, she made it clear she didn't want his name attached to the analyses he was providing.
	And it turns out he was involved with the Kerry State Department in pushing this Russiagate smear along the lines that Steele had.
	I don't think it was coincidental that Blumenthal was pushing the same story, according to Jonathan Weiner, who worked at the State Department and was like Steele's handler, practically speaking.
	He saw similarities between what Steele was saying and what Blumenthal was saying.
	That makes perfect sense, because Steele was working for a Clinton campaign in the DNC.
	They were all using the same sources, they were all using the same information, and it all comes back to the Clinton campaign, brilliantly, in the sense they got the attention they wanted, creating this information to justify, protecturally, the FBI targeting Trump.
	And of course, the FBI was more than willing to use this information too, because Comey and McCabe and company hated Trump.
	And we're sympathetic to keeping Hillary in power or putting her back in power.
	Folks, that's a critical point.
	Another thing is you had President Obama involved in the campaign in a way that no incumbent president has been involved in a presidential campaign in a hundred years.
	I want you to think back to recent history.
	Incumbent presidents weren't involved, practically speaking, in the political campaigns of their successors until Obama.
	So he had a lot of writing on keeping Hillary, putting Hillary in office.
	And so it helps explain the White House involvement.
	He wants to know everything.
	He was briefed on the dossier literally the day before.
	Comey went to target Trump with that false flag operation where he said he was going in there to brief him when in fact he was going in there to spy on him personally and directly.
	I'll tell you, it gets us so many angles to this case.
	That's a fascinating one that's left underreported in my show.
	Not elsewhere, but the Blumenthal Shear Angle.
	Those are consiglieres of Hillary Clinton, folks.
	I'm glad Tom brought that up because I haven't spoken about that in a long time.
	Tom, exit question.
	You've been very generous with your time here.
	Again, we're talking to Tom Fitton.
	He's at Tom Fitton, F-I-T-T-O-N, on Twitter.
	Follow him.
	Pick up his book, please.
	Clean House.
	It's really great.
	Amazon, Barnes & Noble.
	We'll put the link up.
	And go to judicialwatch.org.
	So, we've seen some breaking news about Halper, who is the spy, you know, they love to play the euphemisms game, confidential human, so whatever, I don't really, he was a spy, it's obvious, was spying for the FBI.
	And one of the stories Sarah Carter reported, and we've been covering for months now, Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times has been all over this as well.
	The Office of Net Assessments, which is an office within the Pentagon, apparently paid Halper upwards of a million dollars in contracts.
	You know, I ask you this, and it may be slightly rhetorical, but I'm just kind of looking for your opinion on it.
	Do you think it's possible that U.S.
	taxpayer dollars were paying an intelligence asset, notably a spy, to spy on the opposition political campaign while the Obama administration was in power?
	Could this even have happened in the United States?
	Oh, sure.
	We sued for the documents.
	We represent a whistleblower who was complaining about Halpern's contracts.
	I mean, he thought something was up.
	Is it the one who's been attacked, by the way, and accused of all kinds of nonsense?
	Yeah, well, Mr. Webinger, he had his security clearance pulled because he was asking the wrong questions, it looks like to us.
	But look, the FBI was paying steel in 2016.
	We got the document.
	This is what bothers me about the IG.
	The IG whole process is such an abuse.
	They sat on this information for years, literally two years.
	The FBI met with Steele 13 times during the campaign.
	Our documents show that they paid him 11 those times.
	Now we know the detail, tens of thousands of dollars.
	The FBI was paying Steele at the same time the Clinton campaign was paying Steele.
	It was a joint operation.
	So, I mean, yeah, your tax dollars were not only being used to spy on Trump, but they were also being used to pay the source.
	That gave you the fraudulent information to spy on Trump.
	I don't know, you know, what are we doing?
	And this is why the president is getting impeached because he started asking questions about it.
	He calls the Ukrainians up.
	What happened in 2016?
	What about the Clinton emails?
	What about Biden?
	And he gets impeached.
	Tom, I gotta tell you, I've known you for a long time.
	I've never seen you this pissed off.
	Great!
	I love this!
	Yeah, yeah, well it worked!
	We're 40 minutes in!
	This is an outrage!
	He's being targeted!
	No, I agree with you, brother, 100%.
	Listen, it's a look squirrel thing.
	No, I know, it always has been.
	Tom, listen, thank you very much.
	I went a little over with you.
	You were just, you were fascinating on the Bloomin' Balls stuff.
	Yeah, I appreciate it, buddy.
	So thanks again.
	We'll be back.
	Hopefully you'll come back and visit us again sometime soon.
	Again, folks, Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch.
	Thanks again, Tom.
	Have a great day.
	Appreciate your time.
	You're welcome.
	Take care, buddy.
	All right, folks.
	As you heard, that was Tom Fitton again.
	Judicialwatch.org.
	He is at Tom Fitton on Twitter.
	Go check him out.
	Really a fascinating interview.
	I think the big takeaways from there are, that is, that's been an underreported component of even my show, as well as the Sidney Blumenthal angle.
	You're always looking for a connection between Hillary Clinton and this scandal.
	Hillary Clinton's, like, right-hand guy, Sid Blumenthal, was feeding Christopher Steele-like information into the State Department.
	It's that simple.
	It's not that I forget it, it's just there's so much going on.
	So that was a really great interview.
	I really appreciate your time, folks.
	Thanks again for tuning in.
	I will see you all tomorrow on Friday.
	Thanks again.
	Appreciate your time with this.
	Please spread this interview, share it on Reddit, and subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
	Take care.
	You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
	You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.

▲