The Dan Bongino Show - Interview with Gregg Jarrett (Ep 1129)

Episode Date: December 8, 2019

In this episode, I interview Fox News legal analyst, and the author of “Witch Hunt” Gregg Jarrett about the devastating Spygate scandal. “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“   Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When doctors, clinicians, and government officials collaborate with our country's innovative pharmaceutical companies, the side effects include improved policies that speed up the delivery of medications to those in need and better overall health for all Canadians. Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show, our interview show. I'm really, really stoked about today's interview. It's a good friend here. He's a good friend, Greg Jarrett from Fox News. Many of you have seen him on Hannity. You probably read his first book,

which was a huge hit, The Russia Hoax. We're going to be talking about his second book, the follow-up to that, Witch Hunt. Folks, I record the intros when they're over because I've already done the interview. I want to tell you what's in this. It's going to blow you away. There's so much great information here, so many nuggets, all of the things that went on behind the scenes with Rosenstein and Mueller and President Trump's lawyer. Greg Jarrett has unique insight.

Stay tuned. We're going to get right to it. Today's show is brought to you by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee. We are less than a year from election day 2020, the election which will determine if America continues down the path of greatness or if America will spiral down into full-blown socialism at the hands of left-wing radicals. We hope not, but we can't sit back and wait for 2020. We need you to take action now. Text Trump24 to 88022 and receive official Trump alerts directly to your phone. You'll gain exclusive 2020 updates directly from President Trump himself, be the first to know when new Trump merchandise is available, and you'll even be able to give your input on key issues to help shape the 2020 campaign.

If the Democrats take back the White House in 2020, they will undo everything we've worked so hard for. Make sure you're getting your news directly from the source by texting Trump 24. That's Trump 24 to 88022. Again, all you have to do is text Trump 24 to 8 8 0 2 2. This was paid for by the Trump make America great again, committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for president Inc and the Republican national committee that is dedicated to making America great again. Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, one of my favorite interviews thus far, Fox news contributor and author of Witch Hunt, Greg Jarrett.

All right, I'm really excited to have this guest, a guy who's probably forgotten more about Spygate, the Russia hoax, and the witch hunt than most of us even know. Greg Jarrett. Greg, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. I really appreciate you being here today. Dan, it's my pleasure to be with you. Thanks for having me. Well, Greg, your first book, The Russia Hoax, was a monster hit, one of the biggest books of the year. It's a manifesto on dismantling everything that happened in the Spygate case. I loved it. You have now written a follow-up, which I have right here. Check it out, folks.

Witch Hunt by Greg Jarrett, another just knock-em-out-of-the-park book. This just lays it out. It is the Bible of the Mueller disaster. I want to get to the book, Greg. I just had a couple of questions for you before we started, because my listeners, they really love your coverage on this. You have been one of the key guys in dismantling what I believe, and I'm sure you'd agree, is the biggest political scandal in modern times.

So we're here. You and I have covered this. We know what happened. We have this IG report coming out on Monday, and I'm sure you saw some of the New York Times pieces where it seems like they're trying to take the edge off this, Greg. But one of the things in the Times story I found interesting is they're trying to claim again, again, with your first book, The Russia Hoax Completely Dismantles, that this thing was adequately predicated. Now, I know you hit on witch hunt as well. This FBI case, there is nothing, Greg. There was nothing

there. This was predicated on nonsense. Am I wrong? No, you're absolutely right. And in fact, as I point out in my book, James Comey, in private testimony, admitted that they had no credible evidence when they launched the formal investigation on July 31st of 2016 against Donald Trump. And that was corroborated by Andrew McCabe as well as Lisa Page in their private testimony. You know, under the FBI and DOJ regulations, you have to have two things, a reasonable basis to believe that a crime was committed, and second, specific articulable facts in support of that crime. They had neither. What did they have? They had a dossier that was unverified, so that's not enough. They had Papadopoulos, who heard a rumor that Russia had Clinton emails. Well, it's not a crime to hear a rumor. So neither of the predicates for a formal investigation were met.

It'll be interesting to see what Horowitz has to say about that. But there's also reporting by The Washington Post that the Attorney General Bill Barr doesn't believe there was a sufficient predicate to launch the investigation. Now, Greg, I know, again, I'll show it again in your new book, Witch Hunt. Terrific book, folks. Can't recommend it highly enough by Greg Jarrett. You can see the cover right there. I know a portion of your book, you go into a theory I've had as well, which I don't believe is a theory anymore. I believe the evidence is overwhelming. You go into your book, how Mueller knows almost immediately that this case is garbage. You actually give specific dates and you go over it in pretty deep detail, how Mueller had

to know this case was garbage. And at one point you say that John Dowd, the president's attorney at the time, no longer, but the president's attorney at the time, the legal team was starting to question, you know, Mueller, did he have a grasp of what was even going on? That this may have been driven completely by Weissman. Explain how that, when your book, how you go into that. Well, within months of the appointment, Mueller knew there was no Russian collusion conspiracy. There was a pivotal meeting, March 5th, 2018. That's a year before the Mueller report comes out. The meeting was with Trump's lawyers, and in the meeting, Mueller admits there's no collusion evidence, but he refuses to drop the case. He wants to question Trump under

oath about obstruction, which had no application under the law. So Mueller threatens to go to court, and this shouting match ensues in which Trump's lawyer, John Dowd, gets up out of his chair, pounds his fist on a table, gets in the face of Bob Mueller and yells, you've got nothing, go ahead. I can't wait for you to try. you've got no leg to stand on. It was quite a scene, and I recount it all in my book. But at that moment, Trump lawyers began to realize that there was something wrong with Bob Mueller. They were disturbed by his mental state. Long before he testified in July of this year. During meetings, he seemed lost and confused, disoriented, didn't understand basic questions, they said, or fundamental law. He was

nothing in their judgment but a figurehead, and it was the highly partisan pro-Hillary Clinton Andrew Weissman who was really running the show behind the scenes and refusing to give up on what had clearly become a hoax and a witch hunt. Eventually, you know, like the Wizard of Oz, Mueller was exposed during the hearing in front of Jerry Nadler and his judiciary committee. He was not what his vaunted reputation promised. Well, the details in your book, Witch Hunter Riveting, about that meeting, there were details I hadn't heard before, candidly. I'd love to get your take on this, though. I agree with you. This was obviously being run by Weissman. And Greg, as you and I both know,

Weissman had every interest in the world because he's already a tainted figure upon appointment. had every interest in the world because he's already a tainted figure upon appointment. Weissman has every reason in the world to make this thing go away for the Justice Department and to keep extended heat on Donald Trump because Weissman knows in 2016 the political provenance of the dossier. He's briefed in on it. So I agree with you wholeheartedly that Weissman knows, along with Mueller, this is all a big hoax, a witch hunt, as your book is aptly titled. And they're keeping this going to keep the attention on Donald Trump with the hope they'll find something. Am I onto something there or do you think I'm off base?

Like they'll dig something up eventually and obstruction was their kind of like their backstop, their strike two after strike one. Yeah, you're absolutely right. stop. They're strike two after strike one. Yeah, you're absolutely right. In the summer of 2016, before the election, right after Peter Strzok signed the papers to investigate Trump on July 31st, 2016, Bruce Ohr, whose wife was working on the dossier, is a Department of Justice number four official. He meets not just with Peter Strzok and FBI officials. He also meets with a group of lawyers at the Department of Justice, including Andrew Weissman. And he gives them the contents of the dossier and warns Weissman that this thing is incredibly dubious. You can't rely on it. You got to check it out. The FBI will have to try to verify this thing. So Weissman was in on it early on before the election. He should have recused himself from the Mueller probe and had

nothing to do with it. He should also have disqualified himself because he was an ardent anti-Trumper and pro-Hillary Clinton advocate. You know, he was there the night of what was supposed to be Clinton's victory party that turned into more of a funeral mass. So Weissman was the absolute wrong guy to pick for Mueller's investigation. But it was worse than that because Mueller gave Weissman carte blanche to pick the staff. So naturally, he stacked the deck. Let me ask you this, Greg, because your book goes into an angle. My two books, I didn't stay away from, but I had sources on different

things. Your sources were really locked in on kind of the behind the scenes mechanics. And one of the things you nail on the book is this Rosenstein motivation. Now, I want to throw a couple of things out there, just kind of moving from Weissman to this because they're related. There's some theories out there by some that Rosenstein was a good guy, a white knight in this. I don't believe any of that. I agree with you. And in the book, you mentioned that the appointment of Mueller is an act of almost vengeance by Rosenstein here. And I only bring that up, and I want to get your take on that and how you write it up in the book in a moment, but I only bring it up because the appointment of Weissman makes no sense. You're a great legal mind.

I'm on with you on panels a lot. What kind of a sound lawyer like Bob Mueller, former prosecutor and head of the FBI, appoints a guy like Weissman with known conflicts? Do you think Rosenstein, who clearly appoints Mueller in an act of vengeance to get back at Trump for this, but do you think, excuse me, Rosenstein had a role in the appointment of Weissman, too, knowing Weissman would do what he did to kind of target Trump later? Oh, absolutely. They're all thick as thieves. You know, they'd all work together. Comey and Mueller, you know, were BFF.

Rosenstein had worked with them. Weissman had worked with them. Weissman had worked with them. You know, it was actually a very close-knit cabal, FBI and DOJ. So, you know, Rosenstein appoints Mueller, who, first thing he does is haul in Weissman. And, of course, James Comey was involved in the machinations of Mueller by, you know, leak-stealing government documents, presidential memos, leaking them to the media to trigger the appointment. But the most insidious part of it is that Rosenstein appointed Mueller in an act of pure vengeance against Trump, not because the evidence of the law merited a special counsel, because it didn't. Comey admitted they had no evidence at that point. But Rosenstein had authored the memo. He volunteered to write the memo recommending the firing of Comey.

He had to. The walls were closing in on Comey. So Rosenstein thought, well, I'll be a hero because everything he does is out of self-interest and self-preservation. He expected he would be lauded for writing the memo. Instead, the opposite happened. He was harshly criticized by Democrats for engineering the firing of Cummings. So Rosenstein just gets plain mad. And I recount the meetings between him and McCabe in which Rosenstein's fuming over it. And he blames Trump for his woes. So he retaliates against Trump by naming his special counsel to investigate the president. And on the day of the

announcement, when confronted over his abuse of power, ignoring regulations, Rosenstein literally cowers behind his desk and blubbers, am I going to get fired? In the meantime, Comey, who had stolen the government documents and leaked them to the media, gloated about it all. We're talking to Greg Jarrett here, author of the great new book, again, Witch Hunt. Terrific. Highly recommended, folks. Please go pick it up. So, Greg, Rosenstein obviously is not a portrait encouraging this. And again, I've always been baffled by and I respect. I know a lot of different people have different opinions on this case. I'm not trying to insult anybody, but I follow the case pretty closely. And yeah, for some reason, some people believe he was behind the scenes trying to help Trump.

I see no evidence of that based on what you just said. And a follow up on that, what do you think was the genesis of these expanded scope memos? I mean, we know his initial scope memo. We've seen the declassified portions, the scope of Mueller's investigation, obviously, but we have the August 2nd expansion. Do you think this, and for the audience out there, if you don't know what I'm talking about, Rosenstein basically charges Mueller with investigate this, this, and this in what's called the scope memo. And he goes back to the table a couple of times and expands his portfolio of things he should be looking at. What do you

think's behind that? Is it a simple Mueller wasn't finding anything and he kept giving them more power in the veiled hope that they'd dig up something on Trump eventually? Yes, I think that's true. I think he kept expanding it with an additional scope memo that was hidden from the public for the reason you state, but also because he realized that the original memo authorizing the appointment of Bob Mueller was legally insufficient under the Department of Justice regulations. You have to state a crime. No crime is stated if you look at the original memo. if you look at the original memo.

So he tried to CYA belatedly by writing an additional memo that goes out of its way to identify a potential crime. And it was upon that basis that he went after Paul Manafort, not for collusion, but for tax evasion and other financial improprieties utterly unrelated

to Donald Trump or his campaign. Interestingly enough, Manafort, a similar case, had been closed by the FBI earlier. And listen, as I said in my books, too, I'm not, I don't know Manafort. I've never met him. I have no relationship with the man whatsoever. I'm not a fan or a non-fan. I'm agnostic on him. I'm just saying I have little doubt Manafort would be a free man today if he hadn't worked for Donald Trump. I mean, it just seems bizarre, all the attention paid to this guy for things like, was it 951 violations and potential Farris stuff? It just seems incredible. But I want to get to a couple of things. Your book just eviscerates the media, and I want to get to that in a minute. It really does a great job laying out

how the media were really malfeasance. It wasn't misfeasance it was active malfeasance but before i get that i wanted to go back to where we were in the beginning um i forgot a question we had talked we were on a great track here so you brought up something i think is a key point right now you and i've been astute observers of this case that bar bill bar the attorney general right now disagrees with the leaks. And again, these are all leaks. We don't know. We haven't seen it yet. By the time this interview airs, we'll have a little bit more information. Maybe we'll have to do interview two about the book. But Bill Barr disagrees that apparently the case wasn't predicated. In other

words, the FBI opened an investigation with faulty information. I have a theory I've been dying to get your take on that the reason Barr may know that, that the FBI case was based on faulty intel, but Horowitz, the inspector general, may not, is because Horowitz, he's not a U.S. attorney. He's an investigator. He doesn't have subpoena power. And he's the inspector general for the DOJ, not the intel community. I have a theory, Greg, that Brennan and the Intel folks were the ones who kind of pushed through Harry Reid and their sources, the FBI to open this case. And that Barr sees that big menagerie, that bigger picture about how the FBI, not that they were fooled. I think you and I both know the FBI played along after a while, but that they were kind of duped into opening this case up in the beginning by faulty intel.

What do you think of that? I 100% agree with that. I write about it in my book. I call John Brennan, the ex-CIA director under Obama, the instigator of the Russia hoax, while James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, his buddy was the prodigious leaker. And you're right. I mean, the whole thing was sort of a setup. Brennan goes to then-majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and they concoct this scheme.

Harry Reid, and they concoct this scheme. So, Reid, we've got this dossier, but the media doesn't know it. So what I want you to do is to write a letter to Comey demanding an investigation, even though Comey's already opened the investigation, but the media doesn't know that. And then leak the letter to the media, and they'll run with their hair on fire talking about this investigation of Trump. the election. And again, nobody in the media, you know, really went crazy with it. A couple of news organizations. That's when the collusion term was first used. And the media didn't grab onto it, largely because they assumed Trump wasn't going to win, that Hillary Clinton was going to win. So why, you know, what's the big deal? Why report on this? It was only after Trump won unexpectedly to the shock and chagrin of the media that they then began to embrace this full-throated fallacy of Trump-Russia collusion. Comey, Clapper, and Brennan's scheme to leak the dossier to BuzzFeed and CNN. Of course, Clapper now works for CNN. There were so many schemes, it's really hard to keep track of it, which is why in my book,

at the end, I put in a timeline as well as a cast of characters so people can flip back and take a look and say, aha, that happened then. That's what this guy did and so forth. That's a great idea. It reads kind of like a police file. That's a terrific idea. Let me ask you this, Brennan. I don't think Brennan and Comey are friends with this. Now, we know Clapper and Comey are buddies. They go back. They love each other. These two. I agree. They're like a Big Mac and fries. But Brennan and Comey, I think, are like a Big Mac and a Whopper.

These two are competitors. And the reason I say that is Brennan has been insisting in public media appearances for the past two and a half plus years now, Greg, that he did not see the dossier until December of 2016. Now, you and I both know that's categorically false. You just laid out how Brennan briefs Harry Reid. Harry Reid in August of 2016, obviously before December, where Brennan says he sees the dossier. He briefs him in August and Harry Reid writes this letter to the FBI with information in the letter that was only in the dossier. So I guess my question here is, are these two about to throw each other under the bus? I mean, Comey could turn around and say,

hey, listen, you guys duped us into opening this dopey investigation. I'm not suggesting this is true. I'm just saying this may be his defense. We did it. Brennan told us this information he had was terrific. It was verified. It wasn't. We went out. We tried to verify it. And oh, my bad. So sad. We turned out the information was false. Whereas Brennan can turn around and say, hey, listen, I'm not an investigator. I'm an intel guy. I have no law enforcement powers. I did what I was supposed to do. I got this

information and I passed it off to Comey. It's not my fault they screwed up the investigation. Do you see that friction coming ahead? Oh, I do. And it's already happened to some extent. You know, when rats get trapped in a cage, they begin to gnaw at each other. And that's what Clapper and Brennan and Comey are all doing, even Comey and McCabe, you know, pointing the fingers of blame. They did it with the Intelligence Community Assessment Report. You know, Clapper was blaming Brennan for phony information.

Brennan was claiming Clapper for the same thing. Comey has gone after McCabe for lying. McCabe said, no, you knew about the information that I lied about. So it's not a lie. So, you know, all of the rats are turning on each other and gnawing. And I think it'll happen even more so after the Inspector General report comes out. And certainly after Durham concludes his criminal investigation. We're talking to Greg Jarrett, again, author of the terrific new book,

Witch Hunt. Check it out, folks. Amazon, Barnes & Noble, bookstores near you. Please pick it up. It's a great book. Greg, I get this question a lot. A lot of people,

when I go out book signings and public appearances, they'll say, well, what do you think? Do you think anybody's going to wind up in handcuffs or bracelets here? I mean, is there going to be any law enforcement action against the perpetrators of this massive political spying scandal? Your thoughts on that?

Well, we've already had four criminal referrals, one against Comey for stealing and leaking the presidential memos, which the DOJ declined to act on. That's a disappointment. A criminal referral against Andrew McCabe, who was deputy director and briefly acting director of the FBI, for lying not just once but four times. That's still pending. There was another case against an unidentified deputy assistant director of the FBI. We'll eventually find out who it is. A criminal referral against him not acted on. And now we have the latest referral by Horowitz, the inspector general, against an FBI lawyer who was primary in the Trump-Russia investigation, who, you know, it's unclear if he quit under pressure, was, you know,

fired, shown the door. But he allegedly doctored some of the emails that were used in support to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. And so that is still pending as well. Should there be more? Absolutely. Will there be more? We'll wait and see. Yeah. I kind of take the same cautious approach on that, uh, that you do a couple more questions. I'll let you go. I know you're busy. Again, we're talking to Greg Jarrett,

author of the great new book, Witch Hunt. Please pick it up. Uh, the White House involvement in this, I think it's implausible as a former federal investigator that the White House from the top down was unaware completely of what was going on. But the evidence is overwhelming, whether it's the Peter Stroke text, you know, the White House wants to know what we're doing, that, you know, POTUS is, you know, the White House is running this. POTUS wants to know everything we're doing, an acronym for President of the United States, of course. But there's others. I mean, there's John Brennan testifying up on Capitol Hill saying that he's giving this statement in conjunction with the White House.

There's an Andy McCabe, Lisa Page email exchange where they're talking about the number two with the CIA, David Cohen. And they say, listen, we're going over the White House to brief on this. We need to speak with one voice. The evidence is overwhelming, but there's one more piece

I just uncovered recently. It's an older piece by Lee Smith, who's done great work at this when he was writing a tablet mag. And he writes about this June 23rd, 2016 envelope that arrives at the White House. And this envelope, it's believed by many was the dossier. It's apparently says for Obama's eyes only, and maybe two or three more principles, but that's it. And apparently Brennan's involved in this. And again, Lee's been kind of wired in from the start. So to sum all that up, I mean, is it in any way plausible at this point that Obama did not know what was going on with this spying scandal on the Trump team? He had to have known because it was a

counterintelligence investigation. In truth, it was a secret criminal investigation of Trump masquerading as a counterintelligence probe. But because they named it a counterintel probe, it has to have the president's approval. Why? Because counterintelligence probes are for the benefit of the president of the United States. The information goes directly to him about foreign activities. It's very different than a criminal investigation. And you're right, there is some pretty strong circumstantial evidence, not the least of which is a text message from Lisa Page to Peter Strzok. The White House wants to know everything we're doing on this. And this was, you know, the probe of Trump. And it was the only thing that Page and Strzok were working on

at the time they sent the text message. And of course, remember that Brennan was briefing Trump about everything on an almost daily basis. I mean, that's his job, CIA director. You debrief the president almost every day. You either do it in a memo or you do it in person. And Brent, you know, the logs of the White House show Brennan was there constantly. So, of course, Obama not only knew about it, but either expressly or tacitly approved what was going on. I mean, think about this. A president of the United States spying and investigating a presidential candidate from the opposing party. Never in the history of the United States has something that egregious taking place. And as I, you know, I interviewed Trump for my book, and, you know, he said, this should never happen to a presidential candidate. It should never happen to another president in the United States. I agree. I've had a libertarian streak for a long time. I was against the Patriot Act when it was, you know, when George W. Bush proposed it. And as a former federal agent, this really disturbs me to the soul. It's a terrible case. Let me ask you about

this. The official FBI story about the genesis of this case, I think is nonsense. I probably said it up there, but this tip from Alexander Downer's story is just absurd. It seems utterly outrageous. Is that just a cover story? I mean, I believe as we kind of got to in the question prior to the last one, um, that this was obviously a tip from Brennan at the CIA that went awry and the whole Alexander Downer, this Australian diplomat who met with Papadopoulos in this drunken story, which is total garbage. I just believe that was kind of an ex post facto cover story. What are your thoughts on that? Oh, I agree. And I write that it is in my book. It makes no sense. First of all, sequentially, on the day that Comey stood in front of cameras and cleared Hillary Clinton, his FBI was meeting for the first time with

Christopher Steele armed with his dossier. It's July 5th, 2016. So on the very day that Comey's clearing Clinton, the investigation of Trump begins in earnest. And when Steele hands the dossier over to his FBI handler, the handler says, my God, I've got to alert headquarters immediately. I've got to alert headquarters immediately. There was an urgency to it. And, of course, it was given to the FBI on that very day. And then later, within a 10-day period of time or two weeks, disseminated all the way through to the White House, I suspect. So this whole Papadop a list of the you know bar talk

uh... it is utter nonsense it was a pedal to the new york times probably by somebody in the fbi uh... to cover the real reason for the investigation which was the phony dossier paid for by hillary and the Democratic National Committee, because it makes no sense. First of all, you know, hearing a rumor that Russians have Hillary Clinton's emails, so what? I mean, that's not a crime.

Hearing a rumor, you have to have an articulable basis that a crime has been committed. Hearing a rumor is not a crime. It makes no sense. Maybe you would launch an investigation of Russia to see if it's true. But you don't investigate a junior unpaid advisor who hears the rumor. You don't investigate his campaign, a presidential candidate over that. It's totally unreasonable and illogical. But of course, the New York Times gobbled it up.

Well, your book, and the media should have done their jobs on that. Obviously, they abandoned any journalistic standards or integrity at all. Your book, Witch Hunt, eviscerates that. My final question for you, and this is another big topic with my audience. Obviously, the dossier starts this FBI investigation. Obviously, Papadopoulos at this point, that story is just nonsense. Do you believe Steele wrote the dossier? I don't. I think mostly the dossier based on the Wall Street Journal work of Glenn Simpson back in 2007. I believe based on potentially some of the work of Halper and Halper's cited sources, Trebnikov and others. Remember Steele at one point tells the State Department his sources are this guy Trebnikov,

the former head of Russian Intel. But Trebnikov has a relationship with Halper. We don't know much about his relationship with Steele. So it appears the actual Steele dossier that Steele himself might be the fall guy on this. And I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. He may have had some input to it, but I don't think it was all him. Well, I think you're right.

And we may find out more about that in Horowitz's report. But by the way, I think Horowitz is probably bought into the whole Papadopoulos thing as the trigger for the investigation, which is totally callable. Which scares me. But, you know, I think that the dossier was a collection of a great many things. And you wrote terrifically about it in your book, and hats off to you for really digging into that and revealing some amazing information.

and revealing some amazing information. But, you know, first of all, there was Russian disinformation. And they had to be laughing over the Kremlin. Right. I know, it's so sad. Oh, knuckleheads. But, you know, think about the timing of this whole thing. Within a course of being, within two weeks of being hired, Steele comes up with the first memo in his dossier. That's impossible.

Read the first memo, the information in it. You can't get that kind of information without working, you know, on the ground human sources for months. And yet, like magic, he conjures it up out of thin air in the course of a couple of weeks. So he had to be fed a bunch of disinformation by people. And he either knew it was disinformation, or he's the most, you know, gullible inspector or spy, you know, since Inspector Clouseau. You know, and I think Glenn Simpson contributed it, too, because as you and I have talked about before, read some of Glenn Simpson's old columns bearing a striking resemblance to the dossier. Right, they sound like the dossier. resemblance to the dossier. They sound like the dossier. It's unbelievable.

And Christopher Steele was a convenient face for it because as you document in your books, he had worked with the FBI before and had some credible work history they could sell to a judge. Oh, look, this documented source. So I agree with you. I think your analysis is great. We've been talking to Greg Jarrett,

author of really a wonderful, can't recommend it highly enough book. Check it out right here, folks. Witch Hunt. Look at that. A lot of material in here. Worth your time. Check out his first book as well. One of the biggest selling books of last year, The Russia Hoax. Greg, you have been invaluable on this. My audience loves you on Fox. They love your books. I really appreciate your time. I hope to talk to you again soon. Maybe if you do a third book, who knows? We'll have you back. Thanks a lot. Well, Dan, thank you very much. I enjoy working immensely with you. You're one of the smartest guys I know, and your books have been absolutely terrific and a great help to me as well. So thank you for having me on to talk about it.

You got it, buddy. Take care. We'll talk soon. Take it easy. Bye-bye. I hope you liked that interview. I know I did. I had a blast. As you know, I've written two books myself on this topic. The Spygate scandal is the biggest political scandal of our time, and few people know more about it than Greg Jarrett. He's a terrific legal mind. I really hope you enjoyed that, folks. Stay tuned for more great interviews coming up. We have Candace Owens.

Yes, Candace Owens scheduled next week. That should be great. She is absolutely terrific. Thanks a lot, folks. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino. We will see you all on Monday. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud

and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.