In this episode I address the stunning new information about the alleged “Russian hack” of the DNC, and the troubling revelations about Obama’s role in the targeting of Mike Flynn.
News Picks:
Barack Obama’s staged “leak” about Mike Flynn indicates how scared he is.
The intelligence on the Wuhan lab is devastating.
The leftist media screws up again and deceptively edits a clip of Bill Barr.
A 2018 article about the infamous “The White House is running this” text.
A 2018 article about the infamous “potus wants to know everything we’re doing” text.
A 2019 article about the infamous “speak with one voice text.”
This April article addresses the Trump Tower meeting and the interview of the translator.
A 2019 article about that alleged Russia “hack.”
Copyright Bongino Inc 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.
So Barack Obama is in a total meltdown, in a panic, and I've got to tell you, I know shouting fraud is bad.
I don't even know if I'm saying that word right.
I know it's bad.
I know we shouldn't be celebrating the downfall of others, that morally and ethically it may say a lot of bad things about us, but this whole episode is just absolutely glorious.
They're melting down, folks.
It's everywhere.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today on this Monday morning?
Well, hey, Daddy-O.
I'm doing well.
I trust you had a nice Mother's Day all together there.
I did.
I did.
Thank you very much.
And I hope all the moms out there were celebrated as they should be.
We are all the people we are today because of great moms who Did the right thing, not the easy thing.
So thank you to moms.
All right, let me get right into it because this show is going to be loaded today.
You're not going to want to go anywhere.
We're going to talk about Obama.
We're going to talk about the DNC hack too.
Hack Joe.
Hack air quotes.
We'll get into that.
We have some new information.
All right, today's show brought to you by our friends at Ashford University.
When you're spending time at home, don't just think about your future.
Do something about your future.
Get a degree from Ashford University that can help you have a brighter future.
Ashford University's online bachelor's and master's degree programs allow you to learn in a convenient and flexible schedule.
At Ashford, Expert faculty teach you real-world skills from real-world experience from the comfort of your own home in online classes built for life's twists and their turns.
You can pursue a degree to help you have a brighter future at one of Ashford's 60-plus programs like Business Administration, Healthcare Administration, and Psychology.
With 24-7 access to your classroom, daily support, and financial aid available, Ashford gives you the tools you need to keep climbing.
You're made for moments like these because you're hashtag tenacity made just like Ashford.
Education is personal at Ashford University.
Your success is their success.
There's no fee to apply or standardized testing required to enroll.
Do it today.
Go to ashford.edu slash Bongino.
That's ashford.edu slash Bongino.
Ashford.edu slash Bongino.
Not all programs are available in all states.
All right, Joe, let's go!
Ding there.
So before we get to that, we have to go back quickly to the Flynn case.
Why?
Because that's what Obama's freaking out about.
For those of you who missed it this weekend, former president Barack Obama was on a conference call, a conference line, obviously being recorded with a few of his Obama insiders.
I don't know if he does this weekly or if he just did it this week or whatever.
And suspiciously, the contents of said phone call with Obama right after the information about Mike Flynn and the Department of Justice dropping the case appeared to leak.
Isn't that coincidental?
My gosh!
Also, who did it leak to?
Michael Isikoff.
Yeah, remember Michael Isikoff, one of the journalist, air quotes, insiders involved in the publication of a lot of the Russian hoax stuff?
Yeah, that guy.
And in the leaked audio, Obama's complaining about the Flynn case saying, our institutions are at risk.
We're in big trouble.
Obama's in a meltdown and freaking out.
Why?
Because ladies and gentlemen, as I'm going to lay out in this show, Barack Obama knew.
He knew about the targeting of Mike Flynn for political reasons, not the criminal ones he was charged with.
And he knew about the Spygate scandal the whole time.
On the Flynn thing first.
Joe, I'm going to need the Devin Nunes translator.
Do you have that handy?
Yeah, yeah, I do.
Here we go.
When you're ready.
Okay, I'm going to need this.
I have some video here of a fantastic congressman from California, especially on the Spygate issue, Devin Nunes, who appeared on Maria Bartiromo's excellent show on Fox, which I really enjoy this weekend.
And he's talking about this very specific charge that Mike Flynn lied.
Why am I bringing this up?
Because this is the liberals' talking point now.
Flynn lied!
He planned to lie!
He withdrew that plea.
Did you miss that?
Ladies and gentlemen, you understand there's no evidence Mike Flynn lied to the FBI in their meeting.
Listen to this audio by Devin Nunes first, and I want to show you why the FBI are in a corner right now.
They were the lion then, or they're a lion now.
This is in response to Maria Bartiromo's question to Congressman Nunes where he says, hey, do you guys have any information Flynn lied?
What about the 302 where they interviewed Flynn and they wrote down their notes where they said he lied?
What about that?
Well, the 302 is still missing, Maria.
So here's what we know.
This report, when it was taken down, after that report was transcribed, we had people at the highest level, the FBI, come and brief us.
Plus, we have other sources that also gave us the same information.
That the FBI agents essentially said, look, there's nothing to see here.
Flynn wasn't lying.
And that's what we were told on the record.
So we knew this at the beginning of 2017.
So you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI and that that's what the Mueller team, the dirty Mueller team, that's what they were going to bust him on.
And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, What are you doing here?
Like, we have, on the record, from the highest level of people, that he didn't lie to the FBI.
So, you know, I don't care if that's what you're using, if you're going to drop the charges on Flynn's son, or whatever conspiracy theory they were peddling against General Flynn, they had no possible way to bust him or indict him for lying to the FBI.
Because then that means that the FBI had lied to us.
OK, now, so what happened?
What happened is that that report was doctored, Maria, and that report, we know it was doctored because the lovebirds, we have the text messages of them doctoring the report.
But here's the problem.
That's right.
The original report that was that was used to brief the United States Congress, that report is missing.
It's gone.
Poof.
It's out.
We can't find it.
Unbelievable.
And I would think that's something that we should have.
And that's something that General Flynn should have.
Joe, please activate the Devin Nunes translator.
It's necessary.
Initiating Nunes translator, Dan.
See, this one's pretty straightforward.
Usually Devin Nunes has to talk in code because unlike Adam Schiff, he's not going to leak classified information.
So he doesn't.
So you have to kind of translate.
Therefore, we have the Nunes translator.
This one's relatively straightforward, but I'll make it even simpler for you.
The FBI told Congress, including Devin Nunes, that Flynn didn't lie.
Listen to me, libs.
I know your skulls are quite thick.
You're allergic to facts, possibly immune to them.
I'm not sure if you were vaccinated at an early age, but I'm going to ask you a simple question again.
Try to process this information, please.
I'm humbly begging you.
If Mike Flynn lied to the FBI, where is the evidence that Mike Flynn lied to the FBI?
Well, Congress, they said so to Congress.
No, you're wrong.
That's inaccurate.
Please stop talking about that.
That's a fallacy.
That is not true.
They went up to Congress and testified the opposite, that they didn't think Flynn was being deceptive.
But he pled to it.
He's since withdrawn that plea, and there is so little evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI.
Think about this.
That this coerced plea they coerced out of him by threatening the General Flynn's son with prosecution.
They coerced a plea out of him.
People sadly plead guilty all the time for things that aren't crimes, as Attorney General Bill Barr said this weekend.
The coerced plea, there was so little evidence for it that even though Flynn Admitted lying when he didn't because he didn't want his son prosecuted.
Even though he admitted it with air quotes, they still didn't go forward with the case.
Please process what I'm telling you.
There is no evidence Mike Flynn lied.
None.
Mike Flynn is a political prisoner right now.
Until this case today, hopefully the judge throws this out today, Judge Sullivan.
Mike Flynn is a political prisoner.
He is in jail, not for a crime.
There is no evidence, zero evidence of this crime.
He has been under prosecution and with the threatening of being jailed because of his politics.
That is it.
Now, there's a lot in there.
Nunes says, one, if Flynn lied to the FBI, why did the FBI testify to Congress that he didn't?
Simple question!
Second, if in the original summary of the interview, where the FBI is claiming that they asked Mike Flynn about his conversation with the Russian ambassador in December of 2016, and they said to him, General, did you discuss sanctions, Russian sanctions on Russia and what to do in response to Obama's sanctions?
Flynn said, they said, the FBI asked him, did you tell the ambassador, you know, to stand down?
And Flynn's answer was, no, I didn't say that.
It wasn't don't do anything.
They're claiming Flynn lied about that.
Well, why is the summary of the interview, why did it disappear?
Why is it gone?
Because ladies and gentlemen, here's the problem.
The FBI has already testified in front of Congress, he didn't lie, and I guarantee you that original 302 says that, and it's magically disappeared.
We're living right now, sadly, in a Justice Department banana republic.
I'm really getting tired of the libs.
There have been talking heads on cable news who have me sick to my stomach, too.
I don't care where you are, what network, anywhere.
They go out there and they say things so grossly misinformed and stupid, you wonder how they go home and look in the mirror.
My friend lied!
Where is your evidence of that?
Where's your evidence he lied?
Does evidence matter?
Where is your evidence?
You have some Marie Harf quote.
He plead guilty.
They withdrew the plea.
This plea was so badly supported by the evidence that even after Flynn, air quotes, admitted it under threat of arrest for assault, they still, still did not prosecute this case.
Think about what I'm telling you.
They had a plea.
And the Justice Department had so little evidence the plea was true and authentic, they couldn't prosecute the case after the plea.
Now you see why Obama's panicking?
Obama hated Flynn.
Flynn opposed his Iran deal.
Obama was an Iran appeaser.
Flynn spoke out about battlefield intelligence and its weaknesses and how Obama kept saying, we've wiped out Al-Qaeda, ISIS is all that we've wiped out.
Al-Qaeda is dead and GM's alive.
Remember all that stuff?
Flynn was like, that's not true.
The battlefield intelligence doesn't say that.
They hated Flynn.
Flynn became a target and the FBI at the upper level, unfortunately fell right into this and decided to make Mike Flynn a political prisoner by lying.
I'm going to leave this segment here.
Either the FBI was lying about Flynn's lies when they testified to Congress and said he wasn't lying, or they were lying about Flynn lying later when the 302, where they wrote he didn't lie, where they made that disappear and then edited the 302 to make it appear that he lied.
Either way, the FBI is in extremely hot water right now.
And everybody knows it, including one Barack H. Obama.
Obama knew the whole time.
Obama knew.
There is no doubt Obama knew.
I was on Fox & Friends this morning and I addressed this.
When I say Obama knew, knew what?
New about the prosecution and targeting of Mike Flynn and the Spygate case.
We know that because we now have FBI documents, the new documents that have become clear and unredacted, showing that in the January 5th, 2017 meeting at the White House, when Obama's in his last days of office, that the targeting of Mike Flynn via the Logan Act through the, you know, the phone call, the listening in on Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was mentioned by Obama!
Now, I was asked this morning by a friend, what does that mean?
Well, it begs the obvious question.
Why was Barack Obama directly involved in the monitoring of a phone call between a free U.S.
citizen, three-star General Mike Flynn, and the Russian ambassador?
Well, Dan, that can involve national security interests.
No kidding, numbskull!
He was the incoming National Security Advisor, Flynn.
Why is Obama involved in that?
So let's be crystal clear.
Because liberals are the biggest fraud, phony hypocrites on the entire planet.
How they look in the mirror, I am dumbfounded.
How they live their lives knowing everything they tell you is a lie.
Just to be crystal clear, to point out their hypocrisy.
These same liberals and media nutbags impeached President Trump over a phone call with the Ukrainians.
Where Trump is legitimately concerned about legitimate allegations of corruption by a former vice president's son, who's now running for president.
Legitimate concerns.
You can't bring up Biden in a phone call.
We're going to impeach you over President Trump.
And they did!
But Barack Obama in the Oval Office, in his waning days of office, Personally brings up a phone call he knows about, illicitly monitored, where Mike Flynn's name is unmasked, in a perfectly legitimate phone call with the Russian ambassador about national security issues, when he's the incoming national security advisor.
Obama personally knows and brings it up to law enforcement, and the libs don't care.
They are colossal, phony frauds.
Obama knew.
Let's walk through how Obama knew.
You know what, before we get to it, let me just get to my second sponsor, because I want to run through this, and you are going to be, there's no doubt anymore, Obama knew.
None.
Zero.
Today's show also brought to you by friends at Bowl & Branch, which I needed last night.
Had an interesting weekend this weekend.
A little too much Casa Dragones, if you know what I mean.
I needed some sleep last night, and thankfully we have Bowl & Branch.
Sheets, we're proud to associate with businesses that focus on the needs of this audience like Boll, B-O-L-L, and Branch.
They're great partners measured by the quality of their products and the way they pursue your satisfaction.
Boll and Branch epitomizes an American business success story.
They don't just make sheets and bedding, pillows and towels, and all kinds of comfortable things they make for your home.
With your help, they put thousands of people to work around the world.
We sleep on Boll and Branch sheets.
They're the most comfortable sheets out there, hands down.
The great part about them is they're like a fine wine.
The more you wash them, the more you use them, the more comfortable they get.
I know it sounds crazy.
Try it yourself.
You won't be disappointed.
My bowl and branch sheets are a great example of something small I treated myself with, and it really makes a difference for a good quality night's sleep.
In times like these, when we're spending so much time at home, starting and ending your day on those sheets or pillows is a great reminder of how good life can be during tough times, and how great it will be tomorrow.
Thanks to being available online, BowlinBranch.com is open for business, still shipping their sheets, pillows, and more fast and free anywhere in the United States.
If you've never tried their sheets or down pillows, they will blow you away.
BowlinBranch is still offering their 30 day guarantee.
If you don't love them, you can return them for a full refund.
That's how good they are.
We love them here.
Okay.
So getting back to this.
It's not just that now we know Flynn was targeted.
spell B-O-L-L and branch.com, bollenbranch.com.
It's now the time to make a purchase.
Use code Bongino and get $50 off your first set of sheets.
Again, shipping is fast, shipping is free, restrictions may apply.
See bollenbranch.com for details.
Remember, use promo code Bongino and get $50 off.
Okay, so getting back to this, it's not just that now we know Flynn was targeted.
We know the FBI lied about Flynn lying.
We know Congressman Nunes and others have documented evidence that the FBI is lying.
And it's not just that the FBI and the Department of Justice and liberals and their media allies have zero evidence Flynn lied at all.
None, because they can't produce it.
It's at Obama News.
One more point on that, by the way.
To all the talking heads out there, and you know who I'm talking about, who continue to go on cable news and embarrass themselves and talk about Flynn, these people who couldn't blow Mike Flynn's nose, they're not even worth the time.
Mike Flynn's a patriot.
These people don't know what they're talking about.
I ask you this, if there's actual, let me leave you with this question, because I'm really upset about this and I'm very sorry.
If there is evidence out there anywhere that Mike Flynn lied to the FBI, Anywhere, besides the plea he withdrew successfully, by the way.
If there's any evidence out there, why hasn't it leaked?
Where are the whistleblowers?
We've had leaks for everything, including leaks of a classified phone call Mike Flynn made, which is a felony.
A felony, whoever leaked Flynn's call.
Where's the evidence?
Why hasn't it leaked yet?
Where are all the whistleblowers?
Where are the FBI whistleblowers going?
This case shouldn't have been tossed out.
I have direct evidence Mike Flynn lied to the FBI.
Where?
Where is it?
Why is Joe Pianca, the agent who interviewed Mike Flynn with Peter Stroke in the White House?
Where's Joe Pianca?
Why can't he come forward and say that Flynn lied?
Why?
Well, where's Stroke?
Why isn't Stroke jumping in front of the cameras?
Because they've got nothing.
Now, a little bit of a historical lesson.
Listen, here's one of the benefits of being on my newsletter, by the way.
We call it the show notes.
The newsletter and the show notes are the same thing.
Go to bongino.com slash newsletter and subscribe today, please.
Because one of the benefits is we don't only give you the top news stories of the day.
But we also bring up old stories that are now new again.
And I really enjoy doing that.
Here's one back from 2018 with Fox News.
Remember, we're talking about Obama knew about all of this.
Check this out.
There is some gems in here.
In case you have any doubt about Barack Obama's involvement in Spygate and the targeting of Mike Flynn, which is all the same big case.
Here's a Fox News story you can read in the show notes.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, a little background on this text.
Peter Stroke, investigator for the FBI, and his lawyer girlfriend at the FBI, Lisa Page, are deeply involved in the investigation of Donald Trump, his campaign, and Mike Flynn, by default.
While they're talking about that in an exchange, You'll see in this snippet from the Fox News piece, they text to each other.
Well, that went well.
Best we could have expected.
Other than, and the name is redacted, other than redacted, quote, the White House is running this, Stroke wrote to Page on August 5th, 2016.
My answer, well, maybe for you they are.
And then Page replied, yeah, whatever, regarding the White House comment.
We've got emails that say otherwise.
Keep that up a second.
Sorry, I heard an oops in the background.
Throw that sucker back up there for a moment.
Who's redacted?
Do you understand what's going on here in August of 2016?
They're talking about for days now, Stroke and Page, the Spygate case.
The targeting of people, the targeting of people in the Trump orbit.
And in August of 2016, he tweets to Lisa Page, the White House is running this.
As I said this morning on Fox, what do you think they were talking about?
Ordering a chicken parm from the local Romeos?
What do you think they're talking about?
Baking brownies or chicken tacos like my daughter did last night?
They're talking about the White House is running this case, ladies and gentlemen.
It is obvious.
And how do we know that?
Throw that back up again one more time.
Sorry, I'm really throwing you for a loop.
Because who is under that redacted?
Other than redacted.
What is under that redaction?
I will guarantee you what's under that redaction is a name associated with this Spygate case, and the only reason it's redacted in the line prior to the White House's running this is because it would directly, directly by context, implicate Obama's role in this Spygate case.
Now I can go back.
Sorry, I'm done with that.
Poor Paula, I'm driving her crazy.
I'm very sorry.
My apologies.
You get what I just said?
Please, please, please, please tell me you get what I just said.
That redaction, other than we can't see what's there, that redaction is 1000% probably a name involved with the Spygate investigation, which then sets up the following sentence, the White House is running this, to mean the White House is running this is about whoever's under the redaction.
Or whatever case that person's involved in.
They don't want that out there.
This has nothing to do with national security secrets, those redactions, or anything of the sort.
This has everything to do with covering up for Barack Obama, as I told you from the start.
All of this is about covering up for Obama.
The Hillary Clinton email investigation.
What have I been telling you for three years now?
You're like, Dan, surely that's not about covering for Obama, it's Hillary's emails.
No!
It is!
They're not covering for Hillary!
Some of these media folks don't even like Hillary!
They love Obama though.
They are covering for Obama.
Why?
Because Obama knew about Hillary's emails.
He had to.
And he lied about it on television saying he learned about it from the media.
How did Obama know?
Because he had a BlackBerry, he was getting personal emails from Hillary on a personal account that had to be cleared by Barack Obama's own insiders to get through to his BlackBerry.
You can't email Obama's Blackberry.
You have to be whitelisted.
Somebody put Hillary's personal email on that device.
And somebody told them to do it.
Obama knew this whole thing.
Hillary, Flynn, Spygate.
That redaction is there only to cover for Obama.
Please read that Fox News piece.
It's in the show notes today.
It gets better.
You may say, all right, Dan, what if the, you know, to be fair, what if there's a one in a million chance that is about something else?
The White House is running this and they're talking about whatever, a soup kitchen event they're going to go to.
It's possible.
It's fine.
The chances are one in a million, but it's possible.
Well, let's produce more actual evidence, something liberals can't do, to show Mike Flynn lied.
They can't produce any.
I can produce tons of evidence that Obama knew what was going on.
Let's go to the New York Post.
Another interesting article.
Be in the show notes today.
From 2018.
Worth reading again today.
FBI agents text.
Obama wanted to quote know everything we're doing Again so that's an august
This is a September text.
So in August, the White House is running this.
They're texting each other while talking about the Spygate case.
And then in September, the next month, they're texting each other, as we can see from the New York Post article, that, quote, POTUS, an acronym for President of the United States.
"POTUS wants to know everything we're doing," Page wrote to Stroke in September of 2016
while they were talking about prepping the FBI director Comey on Talking Points
for an update he was giving Obama.
POTUS wants to know everything we're doing.
The White House is running this.
Where is the media on this?
My gosh, I cannot use the Lord's name in vain here.
My gosh, where are you?
Why are you not curious about this?
You've been asking endlessly about this ridiculous fake quid pro quo on Trump's call with the Ukrainian where nothing illegal or even illicit was discussed.
But you're not even remotely curious why FBI agents investigating Donald Trump and Mike Flynn are texting each other that the White House is running this in August and in September, that Obama wants to know everything we're doing?
POTUS, President of the United States, which was Obama in September of 2016, you're not curious at all?
Not even a little bit?
Remember, we can produce evidence.
Something liberal talking heads still can't on Mike Flynn.
None.
They can't do a show like this.
Because they have no way.
It's not guilty.
Yeah, he withdrew that.
You missed that?
Did you miss that?
You mean the coerce plea?
With the side deal that Mueller's prosecutor Van Grack?
The side deal they cut?
With Flynn's old law firm that acted horribly in this case?
And at the same side deal they hid from the court?
That coerced plea, you mean that one?
The one withdrawn with no evidence?
Yeah, that one.
See, we can actually produce evidence, unlike you.
Because we do facts on this show.
You may say, Dan, that's pretty damning.
The White House is running this in August, and another taxpodist wants to know everything we're doing in September?
Believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, it gets worse.
It always does.
This is October.
Another Fox News piece, again, in the show notes today.
These are all worth your time.
If I can recommend, if you're interested in doing what we do here, keep these all in a file.
A digital file, or print them if you need.
But these articles will come up again, and again, and again.
I've been using these same articles for two and three years.
Doing this show.
Same series of articles, because they constantly come back up again.
Here's the third one.
Greg Rhee, Catherine Herridge, Fox News.
This is from 2019.
The FBI clashed with the DOJ over the potential bias of a source for a surveillance warrant, McCabe and Page texts show.
The headlines, they're talking about how they're going to clean up the bias in one of their sources, probably steal.
That's not even the most interesting part of that.
There's a Lisa Page, remember Strokes' girlfriend, the same one involved in those prior two series of texts we just discussed.
But now she's texting Andrew McCabe, the FBI deputy director.
This is an exchange, a communication between them that is almost always forgotten about in this conversation about what Obama knew.
And it shouldn't be, because in my opinion, it's actually the most damning.
More damning than the White House is running this and POTUS wants to know everything you're doing?
Yep!
Here we go.
October 14, 2016.
Lisa Page, again, writes to Andy McCabe.
This time concerning a meeting with the White House.
Again, liberals, we call this evidence.
Here's what Paige wrote to McCabe.
Just called, Paige says to McCabe.
Apparently, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates now wants to be there.
And the White House wants DOJ to host.
So we are setting that up now.
We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with her.
Cohen is likely the Deputy CIA Director David Cohen.
So we need to get Cohen's view before we meet with her.
Listen to this.
Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting.
We need to speak with one voice if that is in fact the case.
So just to be clear on this, now in October, as this FISA warrant to spy on the Trump team is getting approved, to spy on Carter Page and by default the Trump team, Carter Page who had worked with the Trump team prior as a foreign policy advisor, where they can go back and get emails from that time.
As this is being approved, the Deputy Director of the FBI, is communicating with his lead lawyer at the FBI, Lisa Page, who's having a romantic relationship with the lead investigator, Peter Shok, texting about the White House is running this and POTUS wants to know everything they're doing.
And what are they texting about?
Going to the White House for a briefing where the CIA's gonna be there?
And the Department of Justice, too?
And speaking with one voice.
Why would you need one voice?
Pregnant pause.
Maybe because there were multiple voices that disagreed about Flynn and Spygate.
And maybe those multiple voices didn't say exactly what the FBI wanted them to say.
Hey, it's Mike Flynn.
He's big trouble.
It's Trump team.
They're definitely colluding with the Russians.
Ladies and gentlemen, the only time people are worried, especially in a law enforcement capacity, about speaking with one voice, are when there were multiple voices saying different things.
How that communication between Page and the Deputy Director of the FBI about speaking with one voice at a White House meeting with White House staff, how it manages to escape scrutiny outside of Fox News is, to me, absolutely amazing.
Stunning.
Stunning.
Let's sum up where we've been here so far, because I haven't even touched the new devastating information.
Keep in mind, in all of the chaos of the last few weeks and months with the Wuhan virus, with the Mike Flynn now, what appears to be dismissal of this fake hoax case against him, Many people have forgotten, one of the things that's come out too is we now have access to the transcripts of all of the spygate witnesses that went up in front of Congress and swore under oath.
We have the transcripts, and the transcripts, new information is coming out by the moment.
It's almost hard to keep track of how devastating this case has fallen apart.
Now you know why Obama's panicking?
Because Obama knew, and his spygate case was a hoax the whole time.
And every single person knew it, because they went on TV and said, we have evidence of Russian collusion.
And then when they went behind closed doors and had to raise their right hand, they said the exact opposite.
Let's talk about another angle to this story.
So we know the Flynn case is a hoax.
We know the White House is involved.
We know the Spygate case is a hoax.
They need to speak with one voice, even though apparently there are multiples.
What was this whole case based on?
When I say case, I mean the collusion hoax.
It was based on what?
That the Russians hacked the DNC?
And that they allegedly gave the information, or did it, to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Trump, and that the Trump team was involved?
That's the collusion?
Listen to me.
That's it, in a nutshell.
You need a bullet point?
You need parentheses?
Their allegations, the liberal media, The FBI and the other hacks involved in this at the top of the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, their whole case is the Russians hacked Podesta's emails and the DNC, Podesta who worked for Hillary, released the information to damage Hillary and help Trump and that the Trump team knew about it.
That is their case.
Period.
Full stop.
Now that whole case The centrality of it, the key focal point of that whole case would be what?
That the Russians actually hacked the DNC.
Did they?
Oh my gosh.
Media matters.
I can see, I can see.
Media matters.
These morons who sit in mommy's basement in their Snuggies roasting s'mores.
You know they get paid.
Probably, I don't know how much.
It's probably not much.
Who knows?
But they get paid.
You understand they sit in their basement and watch shows like mine?
They say, Kasparov is a thief!
That's all.
See, unlike them, though, we actually produce evidence.
They're getting ready, right?
They're all excited.
I'm not kidding.
They're all, Dan Pacino's promoting a conspiracy theory at a show.
Please, Media Matters, I'm begging you, play this clip, because we've got the evidence, and it's pretty darn damning.
But play this, too.
Maybe you can help us out with everyone else, sponsors and all.
We'd always appreciate that.
This is what they do.
Let me get to my final sponsor first.
And I'm going to walk through how the whole case for the hack is based on sand, not concrete.
Today's show finally brought to our friends at Helix and helped me out last night.
Needed some sleep last night.
Bad.
Always got to wake up Monday or morning early for Fox and friends.
And I got a great night's sleep on our Helix mattress, which we've had.
We have two of them in the house and we love both of them.
Helix sleep.
What's the difference here?
Why Helix sleep?
Okay.
That matters.
Well, because they have a quiz.
It takes two minutes to complete and matches your body type and your sleep preferences.
It's the perfect mattress for you.
Don't just buy a mattress or something.
Why would that?
It doesn't make any sense.
If you get a mattress customized for you, why wouldn't you do it?
Especially at a super competitive price.
I'm a side sleeper.
I'm a hot sleeper.
I like a little more of a firmer bed sometimes, you know?
With Helix, there's no more confusion and no more compromising.
Helix Sleep is rated the number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine.
Why?
How does it work?
Well, here's what you do.
You go to helixsleep.com slash Dan.
You take their two-minute sleep quiz.
It's that quick.
And they will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
It's like sleeping on a cloud.
We love it.
We're not sleeping on anything else in this house.
I took the quiz and I was matched to the Helix Midnight Luxe.
The Midnight Luxe is medium firm and designed for side sleepers.
That's why I said medium firm, because sometimes I like it firm, sometimes... So you can get them firm.
You can get them plush.
You do you.
Don't do someone else with mattresses.
Do you.
Your customized mattress.
I've been sleeping on it and I love it.
It's perfect for me and my wife, too.
They have a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
Right now, Helix is offering up to $200 off all mattress orders for our listeners.
That's a lot.
Go to helixsleep.com slash Dan for up to $200 off your mattress.
Order and get the best sleep of your life today.
Don't wait.
Helixsleep.com slash Dan.
Thank you, Helix.
We appreciate you being part of the show.
Great company.
Go check him out.
Okay.
Let's now get into how not only does the FBI have no evidence of Flynn, but their evidence that the DNC was hacked by the Russians is now falling apart too.
And again, why is this a story now?
Because now we have the testimony.
So surely, surely, surely somebody, especially the computer experts who analyze the DNC servers, surely they went up in front of Congress and raised their right hand because we've been told the DNC hacked.
Surely someone said, yes, we have direct evidence the Russians hacked that.
Not so much.
Let's get to the evidence here.
So here we go.
Let's first play this fantastic Fantastic clip by Tucker Carlson.
We're going to cover two pieces in this.
This is a long cut, but this one, this is the shorter one.
Tucker did an amazing job, and there's a couple parts of this I want you to pay attention to.
First, the Liberals' next talking point on the whole Spygate Flynn thing is going to be, put the Trump Tower meeting, hold that in the back of your head for a moment.
Before we get to that, let's talk about the hack.
Here is Tucker Carlson in one of the finest segments I've seen on cable news in a long time.
This is the beginning.
I'm going to cut it into two parts.
This is the beginning where he addresses this specific liberal talking point that they hacked the email.
Check this out.
The DNC, you'll remember, never allowed federal investigators to inspect their email servers.
That's odd behavior for people who claim to be the victims of foreign espionage.
Instead, the party servers were inspected by a third-party company called CrowdStrike.
All of this coming back to you?
Well, at the time, Adam Schiff's committee interviewed the CEO of CrowdStrike, Sean Henry.
Schiff questioned Henry directly, personally.
He asked if Henry knew when the Russians had stolen the data.
Henry's reply, which we're seeing for the first time, is this, quote, As it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated.
We did not have concrete evidence.
We did not have concrete evidence.
Later, Henry admitted he had only, quote, circumstantial evidence that the Russians were involved at all.
Oh, really?
Wait, wait, wait.
The journalists out there that do facts, you know, media, the serious people.
Joe, not like us.
You're just a stupid audio engineer.
I'm just some dumb old cop.
I don't know.
Not us.
We're the dumb ones.
Remember, the serious people.
Have been telling us, Adam Schiff and others in the media people, you're a conspiracy theorist if you don't believe the DNC and Podesta's emails were hacked by the Russians.
You're a total nut.
Wait, now we find out the testimony that just came out.
That's why this is a story.
We're just seeing this.
They've had this for years now.
But now we're seeing that nobody actually knows that?
Hat tip the great Aaron Maté on Twitter, by the way.
I think it's at Aaron J. Maté.
Forgive me if I'm getting it wrong, but follow him.
Another terrific account up there with TechnoFog, UndercoverHuber, Jeff Carlson, Chuck Ross, Molly Hemingway, Sarah Carter, John Solomon.
The list goes on and on and on.
Byron York.
Aaron Maté is another one.
Aaron has some hat tips.
I mean, excuse me, some screenshots.
I had to pair him.
I got that backwards.
I had to pair him up for these screenshots.
He's got some screenshots there of the actual testimony we've just gotten our mitts on.
And surely the people involved in CrowdStrike definitely have evidence that the DNC was hacked by the Russians.
Let's just go to the actual evidence here, something liberal.
So, Mediabatch, please play this.
Please play this card.
Please, I just need everyone to see it.
Check this out.
Let's go to their testimony here.
We can actually see it.
So this is Sean Henry.
Sean Henry, a former associate of Bob Mueller.
Oh, I'll get to that in a little while.
Who was one of the lead members of the CrowdStrike team.
Again, not the FBI that was analyzing the DNC service.
CrowdStrike.
So they're asking Sean Henry, Sean Henry, who's again, running this operation by CrowdStrike to make sure the DNC was hacked by the Russians.
And he says, this is his own testimony.
Yeah, there are times when we can see data exfiltrated and we can say conclusively, but in this case, but in this case, but in this case, let me say it one more time.
But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left.
I'm about to slam myself in the cojones with this gavel because you've got to be kidding me.
I'm not even... Because, like, I need the pain to distract me from the fact that... Wait, what?
Wait, come again?
Put that up one more time, please, Miss Paula.
One more time.
This is the guy whose company, CrowdStrike, Sean Henry, a former FBI guy who's tight with Bob Mueller, who now says they just don't have the evidence that said the data actually left the DNC.
Come again.
Come back to me.
Say, what am I missing here?
Everybody's been on TV, the serious, but not morons like me and Joe.
We're the stupid people, clearly.
We've been told, that's why in my next book, by the way, every time I write the hack, the hack, it's a legend.
The Russians may have hacked the DNC.
Unlike journalists, I'm willing to concede that.
They may have.
I'm simply suggesting to you, if they did, where is the actual evidence?
Family-friendly show, self-censored F-bomb.
Where's the evidence?
Sean Henry doesn't have it?
And CrowdStrike?
Oh my gosh.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Well, surely the Russian GRU officers.
You know the GRU, that Russian unit, Bob Mueller?
Prosecuted through the now obviously corrupt Mueller probe.
Obviously.
When the investigation into Bob Mueller starts, I don't know, but it should have started yesterday if the GOP up on the Hill had any cojones at all.
But surely the Russian GRU, these intel officers, that we've been told hacked the DNC and exfiltrated or got the information out with the Trump team knowing the whole time.
Surely we have evidence that the GRU was involved.
Hard evidence, right?
I mean, we're talking about impeaching the president over this.
We're told the president was a traitor, guilty of treason because he coordinated with the Russians and their intel officers.
Who attacked our system, and surely the Mueller report has direct evidence of that, right?
Well, again, hat tip, Aaron, mouth tip.
Let's just go to the Mueller report and look where surely we have evidence.
Apparently, during these connections, Unit 26165 officers, 26165 from the GRU, appear, wait, wait, am I reading this right from the Mueller report?
So this GRU officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments?
Later released by WikiLeaks in July of 2016, I... So... So CrowdStrike, keep in mind the FBI hasn't looked at the servers.
Kind of interesting, right?
Think the FBI would want to see those so they can get the evidence?
Nope, no good.
We're gonna let CrowdStrike and Sean Henry, who used to work with Bob Mueller, We're gonna let them look at it.
We don't need the FBI.
They don't have any conclusive evidence at all that it was exfiltrated to the Russians.
They have a pattern, but they don't have any evidence that they're willing to admit to when it's under oath.
Now you have Bob Mueller's own report where it appears that Russian intelligence may be involved in this, in the exfiltration of WikiLeaks.
Oh, it appears?
It appears.
Bob Mueller appears to be full of... You get the rest.
Now, you may say this case can't possibly get any worse.
This Sean Henry from CrowdStrike, they looked at the servers, right?
Sean Henry, remember old friend of Bob Mueller's?
Surely they said something, right?
Indicating definitely that the Russians were in there and they got the information.
Surely.
Well, let's go back to the testimony from Sean Henry, which we're just seeing for the first time.
But Adam Schiff has had forever and lied about because that's what Adam Schiff does.
So Chris Stewart, congressman from Utah, He asked a question to Sean Henry.
He said, you said, I believe talking about the DNC computer, that you had indications that data was prepared to be exfiltrated, be shipped out to the Russians, right?
But no evidence had actually left.
Did I write that down correctly?
Mr. Henry.
Yes.
I, I, I, I can't believe we all got taken here.
Well, not you or a listening audience.
But there's about 10 to 15% Democrats, maybe more, maybe 20%, I'll be generous, say 25, I'm not kidding, it's not a joke, who are more than sane, rational people, probably more.
They're sane, rational people, they'll never vote with us, but they're not crazy, they're not anti-American, they just believe different things than us.
That's okay.
We live in a constitutional republic where you're free and open to express your ideas and assemble and talk about them and petition your government to speak about it.
And thank God, and that is not using the Lord's name in vain.
But I'm asking, I'm speaking to them now.
I'm not kidding.
It's not a joke.
I'm not trying to be hyperbolic or ridiculous or to hurt your feelings or anything.
To those sane, rational Democrats, I know you're out there.
Does this not bother you at all?
We were told the Russians hacked the DNC.
We're talking about impeaching a president over it.
The country has been in limbo for three years calling President Donald Trump, who you may not agree with and may not like, and that's fine.
But you were calling him a traitor, based on a collusion hoax we now know conclusively was a hoax, and a hack nobody can seem to prove.
Oh, it appears we may have evidence, maybe, possibly.
Do you have anything conclusive?
No, no, I don't.
That doesn't bother you at all?
You're not even the least bit curious?
How there's no electronic footprint?
My wife was an internet web developer.
She's no dope when it comes to this stuff.
We're not talking about a he said, she said.
You know, did you threaten me over the phone?
Yes, he threatened me.
The guy.
Did you threaten her over the phone?
I didn't.
We're not talking about that.
We're talking about a computer crime.
Exfiltrated data from the DNC supposedly sent to the Russians that would have, Paula, correct me if I'm wrong, would have led unquestionably a digital trail.
It wasn't sent through Carrier Pigeon, and yet nobody has it?
Nobody has those footprints?
I thought we were told this was a conspiracy theory.
Even the suggestion, by the way, that the Russians didn't hack the DNC was a conspiracy theory.
Let me be clear.
They may have.
They may have, but where's the damn evidence?
Probably in the same locker where the mysterious evidence that Mike Flynn lied to the FBI is, which is up someone's caboose somewhere because it doesn't exist.
Well, it gets worse here.
Surely there's evidence in the Mueller report, again, that these Russian GRU intelligence officers, surely, that they gave the information to WikiLeaks.
Remember what the liberal media has told us, and it's a conspiracy theory if you believe otherwise.
The Russians definitely hacked the DNC.
Through Guccifer and these front accounts.
And that they gave the information to WikiLeaks that published it during the DNC to hurt Hillary Clinton and get Trump elected.
So surely they have evidence in the Mueller report that these GRU people transferred it to WikiLeaks directly, right?
I mean, that's what they said.
Russians gave it to WikiLeaks.
Not crazy, right?
We're not nuts.
Surely there's definitely evidence in the Mueller report.
Mueller, their messiah, right?
Well, let's go to the actual Mueller report and let's see for ourselves.
Because unlike the left, we do actual investigations here.
Mueller report, page 47.
The office cannot rule out, the Mueller office, cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.
This is hilarious.
Just to be clear here, So now you have no evidence that the hack and the exfiltration actually happened to the Russians.
Not my words.
Sean Henry, he doesn't have that evidence.
He's asked twice about it.
He doesn't have it.
The guy who actually looked into it for CrowdStrike.
You know, the Mueller guy?
Mueller's old buddy?
Yeah, that guy.
Your evidence that the Russian intelligence was involved in this transfer of the exfiltrated data via GRU is only evidence that appears to be true and you don't have any actual digital trail of it.
It just appears.
How does it appear?
Like you saw it on Wheel of Fortune?
So how exactly does it appear?
And that when you're saying the Russians transferred the information to WikiLeaks, you couldn't even find the paper trail there and you say, well, they may have given it to others and third parties may have given it to WikiLeaks.
That's kind of important, no?
If now we find out that WikiLeaks and Assange, Julian Assange, who runs WikiLeaks, didn't actually get the information from the Russians, Now, you may say, Dan, there's an easy way to clear this up.
Joe, audience referee hat, please, for a moment.
Yes, sir.
Ready to go.
Easy way to clear this up, right?
Yeah, it's gotta be an easy way.
The FBI, tell me if I'm crazy, the FBI, I know what you're thinking, the FBI surely went and interviewed Julian Assange and said, okay, Julian, You got this information from the Russians, right?
That's what the liberal media said.
Surely they interviewed Joe, right?
They definitely interviewed him, wouldn't you say?
Surely.
Of course.
Armacost, again, he's just a dumb audio engineer and I'm just a stupid cop.
We don't know anything.
But since Joe and I are so dumb and we don't understand this case, clearly, we're like, surely they interviewed Assange because we're dumb and we don't understand stuff.
No!
No?
You would be wrong.
Sorry.
Well then.
Sorry there, buddy.
They didn't interview Assange.
Maybe because Assange may have something to say about where they actually got this from, like the, quote, intermediaries you just heard about, and maybe those intermediaries aren't Russians.
That's a conspiracy theory!
It's an easy way to... It's not a conspiracy theory.
It is a theory, and it may be wrong.
But because again, we're so dumb and we don't get it.
Isn't there just an easy way to figure that out?
Like to interview Assange?
No, that hasn't, that hasn't happened yet.
I wonder, I wonder why.
Mueller, shoe leather.
He's a by the numbers guy, that Mueller.
Straight shooter, Bob Mueller.
No.
No, he's not.
No.
Mueller's disgraced himself and the entire country, and it's an embarrassment.
I don't want to hear another word about Mueller and what a decent guy he is.
Mueller screwed this entire country over.
Period.
You may say, well, this case clearly can't get any worse.
Paul, are you saying that right now?
So you have no evidence of the hack, conclusively.
You have no evidence the Russians gave them the information.
Everything's just by appearance.
Can it get worse?
Oh yeah, the timelines don't marry up either.
My gosh, this gets worse?
Of course it does.
Let's go to this Real Clear Investigations piece by aforementioned Aaron Maté.
Real Clear Investigations from July of 2018.
In the show notes, this is a lengthy one, but if you have some time today, it's up in the show notes.
This'll take you about 20 minutes to read.
This is worth your time.
Aaron Maté, real clear.
Crowd strike out.
Mueller's own report undercuts its core Russia meddling claims.
Wait, it does?
Oh boy.
The timeline doesn't marry up either.
Let's go to this screenshot from Aaron Maté's terrific piece.
As the Mueller report confirms, on June 12th, pay attention to the dates, folks, on June 12th of 2016, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks told an interviewer, we have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great.
But Mueller reports that WikiLeaks' first contact with Guccifer and DC Leaks comes two days after that announcement.
Here's the Mueller report right here in the piece.
It says on June 14, 2016, that DC Leaks sent a direct message to WikiLeaks.
So, how did Julian Assange, on June 12th, get the information that the Mueller report acknowledges didn't come in until two days later?
On June 14th?
I'm just asking for people who can do things like basic math.
To the sane Democrats out there, I'm imploring you to ask simple questions like, if Assange gave an interview, we now have documented on June 12th, I'm not painting Assange to be any kind of hero, goat, or anything else.
I'm simply giving you the facts.
If Assange gave an interview on June 12th saying, we have leaks, and the Mueller report says they didn't get those leaks until two days later, how?
12, 14.
12, 14.
14's after 12.
Let me hold on.
Let me check my Google Calendar app.
Here we go.
Yes, that is correct.
The 14th is after the 12th.
So Julian Assange is talking about information in what?
Michael J. Fox, Back to the Future style?
two days before he gets it?
Now you know why nobody's talking to Julian Assange?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Why?
I mean, come on.
Come on, man.
As Coach Stan used to say, my old baseball coach, when you screwed up, come on, guy!
Come on, guy, really?
Why are they not talking to Assange?
Because they don't want to talk to Assange.
Because when they talk to Assange, he's going to get answers for these questions.
Well, I had the information on June 12th because I didn't get it from the Russians on June 14th or their front accounts, DC Leaks or Guccifer.
I didn't get them from them.
I got them from someone else.
The timeline doesn't even marry up.
Hello, McFly.
I mean, what are you missing here?
How, how are you so frustrating?
I can't take the stupid anymore.
Now, Sean Henry.
Who ran this operation for CrowdStrike, looking into the DNC servers, where they have no conclusive evidence that data was exfiltrated to the Russians.
Their words, not mine!
Not, not mine!
Sean Henry has an interesting history.
Of course, media types are not curious about it all.
But again, we do real news here.
So don't worry about news.
We actually do actual news here.
Let's go to the FBI's own website for that.
Here's a little screenshot from FBI.gov.
Press releases.
Sean Henry named Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal Cyber Response and Services Branch.
Named so by who?
Director Robert S. Mueller III.
So Bob Mueller's cyber guy, Sean Henry, leaves the FBI, later goes to work for CrowdStrike.
The FBI does not look at the servers.
They let CrowdStrike do it, who have their own interesting ties to the Atlantic Council and other globalist-type anti-Russian organizations.
And they still don't have any evidence.
It's in the same locker the alleged Flynn evidence lied to the FBI, which is nowhere.
The locker that exists in the cerebral cortex of only the liberal media and lunatics that go on TV and continue to insist Flynn lied and there's evidence, conclusive evidence of this hack.
May have happened.
Where's the footprint?
Where's the digital footprint?
Nowhere.
Now, I've got more here to end the show.
That Tucker segment is three minutes and 47 seconds long.
It's one of the best segments I've ever seen.
There's another talking point they're starting to develop now.
How does this tie into the whole show?
Listen to me for a second, please.
Everybody turn the volume up and hear me out.
Smile a little bit today.
It's tough times.
We're going through a lot right now.
A ton.
We're finding out we cannot trust our government.
We're finding out about the virus and the economic damage.
There's a lot of bad stuff going on, but I want you just for a moment to smile knowing this.
That at least, at least, at a minimum, I don't know what's gonna happen, who's gonna wind up in handcuffs or not.
I'm not a law enforcement officer anymore.
I don't know.
I cannot control that.
What I can control is my show, and I can control getting the truth to you when the truth comes out.
Smile a little bit knowing that, trust me, I'm getting from terrific sources who have, my two books were big.
I'm gonna leave it there.
Terrific sources.
The coup plotters are in a panic.
Just smile a little.
It's not enough.
Investigations need to happen.
I'm just telling you for a day, just smile a little bit knowing they are in an absolute panic because everything's falling apart.
Obama's panicked about his role in Spygate.
The White House is running this.
He's panicked about his role in Flynn.
He's on record now bringing up the Flynn thing in a White House meeting.
The Spygate plotters are freaking out.
So the next talking point they've been issued from the whole Obama Democrat sphere to their liberal media allies is, listen, we're going to focus on this now.
We pitched the collusion hoax, even though we knew there was little evidence of the hack.
We knew for sure via the testimony of Clapper, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, all the Obama insiders who had no evidence whatsoever of collusion, none.
Do we have their testimony?
They testified under oath.
They went in front of the camera, said collusion's real, and behind the cameras two years ago, under oath, said they had no evidence of collusion.
Now that we know that, their next talking point is going to be the evidence is out there in plain sight.
In other words, you didn't need to see it behind the scenes.
It's the Trump Tower meeting.
Trust me.
Trust me on this one.
This is going to be their next talking point.
Well, we did this because Don Jr.
met with these Russians at Trump Tower, and it was in plain sight.
You don't believe me?
Listen to the second half of that Tucker segment.
It's a little longer, but it's worth your time, where he plays a little montage embedded in his own clip of Adam Schiff going right down this road in these historical segments of Schiff's life.
Check this out.
Adam Schiff heard those words directly.
He heard them from the one person who would know for certain.
Schiff knew there was nothing substantial at the core of the Russian collusion story.
At the very center.
It was hollow.
It was a sham.
Schiff never even suggested this in public.
Instead, he did the opposite.
He spent years on television telling you it was totally real.
Shut up.
So there's clear evidence on the issue of collusion, and this adds to that body of evidence.
There's ample evidence of collusion in plain sight, and that is true.
Have Democrats found any evidence of collusion?
Yes, we have.
You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion.
Pretty compelling evidence.
And there is significant evidence of collusion.
There is ample evidence, and indeed there is, of collusion of people in the Trump campaign with the Russians.
I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy.
All of this is evidence of collusion.
There is significant evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia.
In case you weren't counting during that montage, Adam Schiff said evidence nine times, and every single time he was lying.
And it was fairly obvious at the time if you were following closely.
Schiff never produced any of the so-called evidence that the DNC server, or by the way, John Podesta's email, were hacked by the Russian government.
Several times on the show, we raised the question, do we really know this?
A group of tired intelligence officers wrote a long piece saying, actually, that didn't happen.
And here's how we know.
And we brought that up on the show.
We came under enormous pressure to be quiet.
You're crazy.
We know that for a fact.
But we didn't know it for a fact.
And when Schiff came on the show, we asked him, how exactly do you know this?
He never answered our question.
Instead, he accused us of treason.
Look right into the camera and say, "I know for a fact the government of Vladimir Putin was behind the hacks of John
Podesta's email."
Absolutely. The government of Vladimir Putin was behind the hacks of our institution and the dumping of information.
Of John Podesta's email.
Not only in the United States, but also in Europe.
Okay, you're not...
You see it?
Did you catch it?
And Tucker, you look and say, I know they did jump at his emails, they hacked us.
And I think that Ronald Reagan will be rolling over his grave.
You're carrying water for the Kremlin.
I'm not carrying water for the Kremlin.
You're a sitting member of Congress on the Intel Committee and you can't say they hacked
us.
You're going to have to move your shoulder to RT, Russian television.
Did you see it?
Did you catch it?
There are two gems in there.
one, the talking point about it's in plain sight.
We didn't need to see it behind the cameras while people were testifying on the road.
Why?
Because it wasn't there.
It's this Trump Tower meeting.
Let me get to that in a second.
But quickly, on this one point, you see what he says at the end?
Tucker nailed him years ago.
The Russians, no question, period, full stop, no further comment needs to be stated.
The Russians have definitely been hacking into our systems, infrastructure, intelligence operations in the United States for decades.
They are not our friends.
They can't stand us.
That's a fact.
That's not even debatable.
No serious person debates that.
Notice, though, when Tucker asks him, can you say on camera, because he knew way back then, Tucker, like many of us suspected, That they don't have any evidence at all the Russians hacked John Podesta's emails, Hillary Clinton's consigliere.
He asks him, can you say in the camera you have definitive evidence that the Russians hacked Podesta's email?
Do you hear what he said?
That's not what he said.
I have definitive evidence that the Russians hacked our institute.
Do you hear that?
And when caught, what does he say?
You're carrying water for the Kremlin shift.
Because he doesn't have anything else.
Because he's a lying fool.
He is garbage.
He is the garbage people we've been talking.
You know garbage people?
That is Schiff.
I'm not talking about sanitation workers.
They're great.
We'd be lost without them.
I'm talking about garbage people that the sanitation people should take out.
Put them in the garbage can and put them in the truck.
These are the garbage.
They're human garbage.
They have lied to you for years.
Schiff should resign.
Tucker's correct.
He should.
He should resign.
He should have some dignity and leave office.
All the damage he's done.
But on that Trump Tower meeting, well, I might bring up Trump Tower.
Remember the meeting in 2016?
Don Jr.
meets with Rinat Akhmetchen and Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer.
You may say, oh my gosh, that's clearly evidence of Russian inclusion.
Number one, it's not illegal to meet with Russians at all.
But you remember Veselnitskaya, the lawyer Don Jr.
and Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner meet with?
Yeah, the one that was working for Fusion GPS, hired by Hillary.
So I'm just curious, like if meeting with those Russians is bad and potentially criminal, Hiring them isn't?
I'm puzzled.
They said, well, they didn't work directly for Hillary.
No, no, they were working with the company hired by Hillary to shit up information on Trump.
That always escapes the media folks, by the way.
He met with Russians.
Yeah, Russians working with a team hired by Hillary.
So you can hire them, but don't talk to them?
A little confusing, no?
No, only confusing when you're an idiot, which fits the unfortunately stamped on the heads of most of our media folks.
But about that meeting, clearly at that Trump Tower meeting where collusion was in plain sight, there's definitely been evidence that surfaced by the translator who was at the meeting, Samachornov, I always say his name wrong, but Anatoly Samachornov, who was there at the meeting.
He was the Russian translator between the Russians and Don Jr., a guy who self-admittedly can't stand Don Jr., doesn't like him.
Surely, surely some evidence has surfaced over the past two years because they interviewed him two and a half years ago.
Hat tip undercover Huber.
They interviewed him two and a half years ago.
Surely the translator at that meeting has indicated that there was definitely, definitely some collusion that went on there.
Well, let's go to the evidence.
John Solomon has some transcripts.
Here's John Solomon, justthenews.com from a piece he put up a little while ago.
Mueller's hidden evidence.
The translator exonerated Don Jr.
in Trump Tower meeting.
Paul, am I reading that wrong?
Headline.
Mueller's hidden evidence.
Translator exonerated Don Jr.
No, no.
Clearly that's a, that's a typo.
Exonerated Don Jr.
in Trump Tower meeting.
Infamous meeting.
Did not focus on Clinton dirt, but on Magnitsky Act.
Which is what Don Jr.
said the whole time?
I'm reading that headline wrong.
Clearly in the body of the piece, the translator, who the FBI spoke to two years ago, and we just got these transcripts recently, clearly the translator said something different.
So, from John Solomon's piece, despite learning the translator's information on July 12, 2017, just a few days after the media reported on the Trump Tower meeting, the FBI would eventually suggest that Don Jr.
was lying, and that the event could be seminal in a Russian election collusion.
Schiff learned about this two years ago, too.
Solomon Chernoff's eyewitness account entirely debunks the media's narrative.
They knew about this two years ago, and the FBI put it in a memo.
Here's the FBI's memo.
Samit Chornoff, the translator at the Don Jr.
Trump Tower meeting, which is going to be their new talking point, that's their clear evidence, was not particularly fond of Don Jr., but stated Don Jr.' 's account with Veselnitskaya, as portrayed in recent media reports, was accurate.
According to the FBI 302 in the interview with the translator, Samit Chornoff concurred with Don Jr.' 's accounts of the meeting, added, they were telling the truth.
So when your silly leftist friends immune to facts trot out the Trump Tower meeting, That's evidence of the collusion, really?
Because the translator at the meeting, who doesn't even like Don Jr.
You know, the meeting with the Veselnitskaya, Russian lawyer, working for the company paid by Hillary.
She can pay them, but you can't talk to them.
That's interesting that the translator at the meeting, who doesn't even like Don Jr., said that Don Jr.' 's account of the meeting was in fact accurate.
And they knew this two years ago, despite them saying the whole time, oh, there's evidence out there.
It's everywhere.
There's no evidence.
They made this whole thing up.
All right, folks, I've got more tomorrow, including... I was going to get to it today, but Tom Cotton made an appearance on Maria Bartiromo this weekend about the Wuhan virus.
It's pretty stunning.
I'm a little short on time today, and it deserves some attention.
I'm going to get to that.
I'm going to get to some media madness, too, how they're going to have to do a whole lot of backtracking or retraction soon.
It's really devastating.
Thanks for tuning in.
Please subscribe to my show.
It is free, but Paula puts a lot of work into the video show, as do I, uh, Drew and Joe as well into the production.
And we really appreciate if you watch the show too, it's youtube.com slash Bongino.
And if you go to apps, if you have Comcast or some of your cable providers, the YouTube app is right there.
You can actually watch our show on your television.
That's right.
Hit the menu button on your remote.
You'll see, it says apps.
Go over to YouTube and you can watch the show on your TV.
