The Dan Bongino Show - John Brennan is in Deep Trouble & Pelosi is Running Scared (Ep 1140)

Episode Date: December 20, 2019

In this episode, I address the explosive NY Times article showing that John Brennan is under active investigation for his role in the spying scandal and I articulate exactly what he did. I also cover a viral article about the impeachment of Donald Trump which asks the question “was Trump even impeached?”News Picks:The NY Times is worried now that Brennan is under investigation.   This 2017 Washington Times article shows how deeply Brennan was involved in the illicit Spygate operation.   Did the UK already know about Steele’s information?    This 2017 CNN article gives up the entire scandal.   The economy is motoring, especially for those in the middle and lower middle-class.    Liberals get triggered by the words “Merry Christmas.”    The Trump campaign raises 5 million dollars on the day of impeachment.   Has Trump even been impeached yet?   This is the most partisan impeachment in US history.    The courts have ruled against Obamacare, here’s what’s next.   Democrats are manipulating the impeachment process & messing with norms.    Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

get ready to hear the truth about america on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host dan bongino oh boy do i have a show for you today folks everything we've told you is now coming out the new york times is trying to get ahead of it folks trying to get ahead run interference for the spy gate co-conspirators got that impeachment blowing up in the Democrats' face. A little bit of coverage of the debate last night. Just a disaster. Really kind of a waste of time, but some funny stuff from last night. And another interesting article about how the Democrats are lying to you again about the economy.

Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. Loaded Friday show. Producer Joe, how are you today? Fine, sir? Oh, dude, it's been one long week. I'm so glad that it's Fridayiday yeah all right there's a little worry there you forgot what you're supposed to do on friday that's your you know uh radio 1970s radio intro we all love and adore so well folks listen uh i got a lot to get to today before i

get that i just want to tell you one quick thing and ask a favor i will be guest hosting the sean hannity show on Fox on Monday, this Monday coming up 9 PM Eastern time, the Fox news channel, please with the greatest of respect and humility. I ask you check out the show DVR. And if you can't watch it right away, I really appreciate it.

We got to travel up there. We will still have a show on Monday. We will be taking off Christmas Eve. We'll run a best of show. The best of our best shows of the year and Christmas day, there will be no show. So a best of on Christmas Eve, we'll run a best of show, some of our best shows of the year. And Christmas Day, there will be no show. So a best of on Christmas Eve, no show Christmas Day, and we'll be back for you Thursday and Friday. So Monday, Thursday, and Friday will be original shows,

best of on Christmas Eve. Thanks for your patience. We appreciate it. I really want to spend some time with the family, Joe, Paula as well. Merry Christmas to you all too. All right, let's get right to it, Joe. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Law Shield. Listen, you've heard me talking about LawShield for a long time.

U.S. LawShield is a great company. Do not carry a firearm naked. I don't mean without clothes. I mean without the protections of U.S. LawShield. They're the company I trust to have my back. If some criminal ever forces me, God forbid, to use my firearm in self-defense, me or my family. Now, I want to tell you about a really cool giveaway they put together for my listeners. They're giving you a chance to win an all-expenses-paid trip

to visit Ox Ranch in Texas where you get to drive and shoot a real World War II Sherman tank. It's an experience of a lifetime worth $5,000. You can enter to win right now at uslawshield.com slash Dan. No credit card,

no strings attached, no risk. Just your chance to drive and shoot a real Sherman tank. It's truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Simply go to uslawshield.com slash Dan right now to secure your free entry. That's uslawshield.com slash Dan right now. U.S. Law Shield.

They provide you that legal protection, ladies and gentlemen, you need if you are a firearm owner 24-7, 365. Don't carry your firearm naked. uslawshield.com slash Dan. The best protection out there. All right, Joe, let's go. Ding, ding. at uslawshield.com slash Dan, the best protection out there. All right, Joe, let's go. Here we go. Ding, ding.

Ladies and gentlemen, well, I forget the movie. You know, I'm always terrible at the pop culture references, but what's the movie of the, it's happening. It's not a TV commercial or something. It is happening. Again, I don't want to be dramatic. I don't like to do this. Oh man, everybody's going to jail.

Matter of fact, whatever stance I take on the Spyg thing i always get nasty emails which is fine i give you my email for feedback positive negative or whatever but if i tell you i don't think this specific person's going to go to jail people yell at me stop saying that and then when i say you know it's happening i get other tweets they go stop saying that nothing's happening nobody's going to jail so i've given up on part. I'm only going to tell you the truth. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just going to tell you what I think because there's no pandering to people is useless and it's phony too. And I don't do that. So what do I mean? It's happening. The New York Times put out an article last night, literally as Bill Barr was on the air in an interview, it was a taped interview with Martha McCallum on Fox last night at 7 PM. We covered it yesterday, the highlights from it. The attorney general's on the air talking about

the Spygate thing and who is going down. And as he's on the air, Joe, crazy how this happens. Crazy talk. Crazy. As he's on the air, the New York Times gets this explosive leak about how Durham, John Durham, a.k.a. Bull, John Durham is scrutinizing ex-CIA director's role, John Brennan, in the Russian interference finding. That's crazy. Leaks, Joe. It's crazy. I know. Amazing how that keeps happening. It's crazy. How the New York Times keeps getting these leaks from these deep staters, right as information's being put out in real media outlets like Fox about how bad the Spygate scandal is.

So the Times is clearly trying to get ahead of something. The question you need to ask, and I'm going to tell you today, is what are they trying to get ahead of? Well, we've been covering a lot of it for two years. So I'm going to cover just two lowlights. There are no highlights in a New York Times piece from this New York Times piece, which basically confirms, again, the story we've been telling you for two and a half years now about the information laundering operation, John Brennan's role in the CIA, and the spying on using foreign partners of U.S. persons in circumvention of U.S. laws. How that story is real, and you haven't been wasting your time. Without further ado, clip one from the new york times piece check this out i'm going to read this to you this is just fascinating so this is how it

opens it says the federal prosecutor talking about dorham who's looking at the russia investigation has begun examining the role joseph of former cia director john brennan oh yes in how the intelligence community assessed russia's election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry. John Durham, the U.S. attorney leading the investigation, has requested Brennan's emails, call logs, and other documents from the CIA, according to a person briefed on the inquiry. He wants to learn what Brennan told other officials, including FBI Director Comey, He wants to learn what Brennan told other officials, including FBI Director Comey, about the CIA's views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump's associates.

Give them up. Give them up. Give them up. Show us the emails. Show. What did Jerry Maguire say? Show me the money. Show us the emails.

Give them up. It reminds me of my friend, my buddy, Brian. He ordered a steak once in a restaurant, right? And he thought they gave him two steaks. So he gave the extra steak to my brother, only to find out it was a potato upside down that looked like a steak. And he said, bring it back. Bring it back.

Paula's laughing because she knows it's a true story. He gave my brother the steak and got stuck with the potato. Bring it back. Bring it back. Bring it back. Bring back the emails. We want to see them. Give us the call logs, Johnny B. Johnny B, fess up, buddy.

Let's see what you got. Give me what you got. Remember Al Pacino in heat? Walks into the club at night to the source. Give me what you got. Give me what you got. We'll take them emails now thanks john see what you really got

now what has been the operating theory on this show for the last two years yes ladies and gentlemen the spying operation on the Trump team, this is very simple, did not start with the FBI. The FISA warrant to spy, the formal operation to go to the courts and spy on Carter Page and other Trump team members was not the beginning. The deep staters want you to believe

that was the beginning and they want you to believe that started because of the Papadopoulos downer foreign government tip about Russians. Papadopoulos heard about Russians wanting to help us. That's not what happened. This started very simply because John Brennan, the CIA, and others likely wanted intel on Barack Obama's political opponents, but couldn't get it because there are U.S. laws that prevent the U.S. government from spying on its own citizens. But they had another place they could get it from, Joe.

The five E's, the five I's partners are friendly partners that are supposed to be cooperating on intelligence sharing to target terrorists and the like, not Barack Obama's political opponents. Do you understand that is the scandal? Why do you think in the beginning i just the new york times piece why do you think john durham the u.s attorney looking into this wants all of what brennan was talking about about the dossier if he believed brennan who and we'll get to the video in a minute that brennan didn't brennan said he didn't investigate the dossier oh i got his video don't go anywhere brennan said he didn't even see the dossier until december if all that's true to joe then what's dorym looking at no problem the dossier that you know the fbi used it obviously but brendan's saying i didn't see it till december it was used to get a warrant in october i don't have any pride

nothing to do with that october fbi gets a warrant based on the dossier i didn't even see it till december i'm good if all that's true then then why is Durham saying, give us what you got. Give us what you got. Why is he doing that? Because he's just wasting his time on some fishing expedition. Why is the New York Times writing this piece now? Well, of course, the New York Times always gives up its motive. Remember, it's strictly a Pravda like propaganda outlet. Pravda, of course, the New York Times always gives up its motive. Remember, it's strictly a Pravda-like propaganda outlet.

Pravda, of course, the Soviet Union's official newspaper. This is the official newspaper of the Democrat Party. Let's go to the second take from this New York Times piece, where they give up exactly what their intention is here. Quote, Mr. Durham's pursuit of Mr. Brennan's records is certain to add to the accusations. Wait, wait, wait, time out, T.O. Certain to add to the accusations. Keep in wait, wait, time out. Tio certain to add to the accusations. Keep in mind what they're about to lay out.

It's not an accusation. It's what the New York times wants you to believe. Mr. Durham's pursuit of Mr. Brennan's records is certain to add to accusations that the president, president Trump is using the justice department to go after his perceived enemies. Oh,

let me skip down to the second part mr durham is also examining whether brennan privately contradicted his public comments including his may testimony about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on russia interference the people said so two takeaways in there The first is the most important. The first is that the New York Times isn't telling you about legitimate accusations. The New York Times is leveling those accusations. You get what I'm saying, folks? by the left yeah that this looking into of john brennan's potential malfeasance and maybe criminality i don't know what we're gonna find that this is strictly a political witch hunt by trump and they're saying joe there are accusations out there but yeah from you no serious person believes that serious people who've looked into spygate no john brennan's got a lot of explaining to do show me the money serious people know that but again i said serious people it doesn't include the new york times so you see how they cleverly do

that the purpose of this piece joe is to tell a story oh it's pretty not the story yeah and the new york times story they want out there is this is all a partisan witch hunt against brennan accusations are out there folks no they're not you're just only by you again not serious people why do you think that piece was run last night as bill barr attorney general was on martha mccallum's show dropping tactical nukeses on John Brennan's melon and Jim Comey. Why do you think that's how you think that happened by mistake? That a couple of deep staters, three, according to the story, leaked this? Folks, again, keep in mind the lead.

They have absolutely no doubt our intelligence infrastructure was spying on political campaigns, infrastructure was spying on political campaigns notably cruz carson and trump using foreign partners in circumvention of u.s law i i there's no doubt about this anymore now to show you how much trouble he's in and by the way they're also looking into the intelligence community assessment done in december after the election into the intelligence community assessment done in December after the election. Remember the intelligence community assessment? The 17 agencies said that the Russians interfered to help Trump. That may not exactly have been true, folks. Now, we know the Russians interfered in our election. That point goes without saying, and no one should dispute that because you'd be disputing known facts.

Russians have been interfered. Yeah, in our elections since the Soviet Union days. That's not the question. The question is the intelligence community after Trump was the president-elect came out with a document backed by Brennan and Comey and others saying, oh no, they did it to help Trump.

Apparently, Durham's looking into that too. Lee Smith, great writer, with his book out, The Plot Against the President. Lee Smith calls the intelligence community assessment the 17 agencies that agreed they wanted to help Trump, the Russians. He calls that Obama's dossier.

You could also call it the cover-up. That ICA gave them cover. Cover for what? That everything they'd been doing to spy on the Trump team, Joe, was legitimate. Look, the intelligence community agrees they were trying to help Trump. Fair and square to look into it, right? So why is Durham looking into that too, Joe?

Durham's probably looking into that intelligence community assessment because that assertion in there that the Russians were trying specifically to help Trump. Was that really based on intelligence or was that based on a political opinion that the White House really needed out there? Oh! Oh! Oh! Hey, before you move on,

I got a little gift for you. I know you asked for this. You ready? Initiating Bill Barr translator, Dan. Thank you. There you go, brother. Thank you, Joe.

You're welcome. We need that. We're going to need that throughout. I know. We have the new Thank you. There you go, brother. Thank you, Joe. You're welcome. We need that. We're going to need that throughout. I know. We have the Nunes translator. By the way, I will be interviewing Devin Nunes today. Joe and new producer Drew for the video show will be launching the show tomorrow, Saturday.

Do not miss it. We have the Nunes translator. Someone wanted me to ask Nunes about the Nunes translator. We'll see. But now we have the Barr translator. Thank you, Joe. That's why you're the best the Nunes translator. We'll see. But now we have the bar translator. Thank you, Joe. That's why you're the best producer in the business. We love you.

Now, moving on, the Washington Times, the great Rowan Scarborough. By the way, in my show notes, Bongino.com slash newsletter, I have the show notes. Ladies and gentlemen, the benefit of subscribing to our newsletters, we don't just put stories from today. I put stories that are older that are now applicable again today. There is a great piece from 2017 by Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times. It will be in the show notes today. I want you to read it. Why? Because again, Brennan is nailed to the wall. He knew about the dossier. This was an intelligence laundering operation being run,

I believe, through the CIA. Rowan Scarborough, May 29th, 2017. Obama loyalist Brennan drove the FBI to investigate Trump associates last summer. Folks, this is the operating story. Keep the lead of this in mind. The New York Times wants this to go away. They're going to paint this all as a political witch hunt against Brennan. What do I believe Brennan did? I believe Brennan was running a rogue spying

operation and lied to the FBI to get them to open a criminal operation as cover for what Brennan was already doing. In other words, we can't tell the American people were spying in the CIA, but we can tell them the FBI has evidence of criminality and are doing a counterintelligence investigation. It was all cover. It was all a cover story. Now, from the Rowan Scarborough piece, a line that's going to become critical here. You know what? I have some portions of it highlighted.

By the way, hat tip to, I forget the person on Twitter who highlighted this. Forgive me. I'm not trying to like steal your stuff, but this was a really great highlight and I just forgot who put it out there. But this is from the Rowan Scarborough piece. This is what Brennan, how he described his actions in front of a congressional committee on

their own. I wanted to make sure that every information and bit of intelligence we had was shared with the FBI so that they could take it. This is by the way, Brennan passing the buck to the FBI, get ready for it. It was well beyond my mandate as CIA director to follow up on those leads that involved US persons. But I made sure that anything involving U.S. persons, including involving individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the Bureau. It goes on. This is where it gets hairy. Brennan, quote, I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian individuals and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either winning or unwitting.

And it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether collusion or cooperation occurred. He was aware of contacts between people on the Trump campaign and the Russian government? Where was that information coming from? How did he know that? Where was Brennan getting this information, ladies and gentlemen, about contacts if they weren't, if Brennan's assertion that he knew nothing about the dossier, the dossier, which is the only place where you can find information about people on the Trump campaign, Carter Page,

Papadopoulos, and the Russians. That's the only place. If Brennan's saying he didn't see that, then where was Brennan getting his information about the Trump campaign allegedly colluding with the Russian government? Well, let's go back to this CNN article, which I've had to post 62,000 times on this show, maybe a bit hyperbolic, but you get the point. April of 2017, CNN politics. British intelligence passed Trump associates communications with Russians on to US counterparts.

Ladies and gentlemen, this scandal is no more complicated than this. And the devastating portion of it is, as someone explained to me recently, we have multiple sources feeding things into this. And I will not report anything to you unless I can confirm it for multiple places. I just want to be clear on that. that the scandal here was that U.S. citizens were being targeted and spied on by an intelligence infrastructure whose sole purpose is to assist U.S. citizens from being spied on and being the targets of terror investigations. Their entire role was reversed, and they were doing it in

conjunction with their U.K. partners. I've got more on this coming in a minute and some sound that Paula found, which I had somehow missed because of a play button. I'll get to that in a second. It gets better. I want to play this quick video here of John Brennan, who made an appearance on Chuck Todd. Again, the second dumbest guy in media after Brian Stelter. He's the silver medalist in the Dopey Olympics, right?

Chuck Todd did an interview with Brennan a while ago. Ladies and gentlemen, Brennan has been running from the dossier from the start. I didn't know nothing about nothing about nothing. I didn't see it to December. I didn't investigate it. I had nothing to do with this dossier. You sure? Well, let's listen to Brennan himself say how he even corrects Chuck Todd that he didn't investigate the dossier. This is him. And this is the opening of the interview. He is repulsed by the insinuation that he investigated the dossier. In other words, he had nothing to do with it. Check this out. Joining me now is one of the people who investigated the dossier, former CIA director John Brennan. He is now an NBC News Senior National Security and Intelligence Analyst. Director Brennan, welcome back to

Meet the Press. Good morning, Chuck. And I should correct you. I never investigated the dossier. Itself. Okay. Let me ask you about Michael Cohen then. Was he ever on your radar? I'm not going to get into details about who may or may not have been on my radar as far as a U.S. citizen is concerned, because that was not CIA's role. Anytime that the CIA collected information incidentally that involved a U.S. person, we would share that immediately with the FBI, and then it would be the FBI's responsibility to pull the threads and do the follow-on investigation. So, ladies and gentlemen, again, I'm asking a very simple question. If the only place on planet

Earth we know about where the allegation that a trump campaign member colluded with the russians is in the steel dossier right that carter page was working with the russians with manafort and all false of course but if that's the only place it exists and brennan we now suspect had some information about russ with U.S. persons. You just saw the Washington Times piece, did you not? Brennan's quote, I had information about the Russians working with U.S. persons on the Trump campaign. But if the only place that exists is the dossier, do you understand how these two stories can't be true? be true.

Brennan's saying on one hand, Joseph, in the spring of 2016, I had information about the Russians working with Trump campaign officials. Right, right. That only exists, ladies and gentlemen, in the dossier. Brennan claims he didn't investigate. You just heard him. And he claims in another

clip, which we've played before, I'm not going to play again. He hasn't seen until December of 2016 after the case was already started. Are you getting how these stories can't be true? Because they're not true. Brennan clearly knows about the information in the dossier. The only question is, did Brennan get it from Steele? Or is Brennan getting it from other friendly intelligence partners who may be

assisting Steele? Maybe a sophisticated information laundering operation? Don't you worry. I will tie this up for you in a neat little cute bow and package. Now, I believe Brennan was getting this information from our foreign intelligence partners, supposed to be friendlies, by the way, the information in the dossier. I believe Brennan was getting that as some of those intelligence partners were giving it to Steele and others as well. They're getting it because they don't have to obey

U.S. spying laws on U.S. citizens because they're not U.S. citizens. They're friendlies, like the United Kingdom. Supposedly friendlies. I believe they're feeding that, the CIA, to the FBI. You saw the Washington Times quote from Rowan Scarborough's piece, which, again, is in the show notes. Please read it. It's from 2017. It's relevant again today. Brennan's clear as day. I passed this off to the FBI. But did Brennan tell them that what he was passing off was what they

were getting from Steele? Can't be, Joe. He just said he didn't investigate the dossier and he already told Chuck Todd he hadn't seen Steele's dossier until December. So when Brennan, he says he hasn't seen the dossier until December of 2016, is talking to the FBI in the spring of 2016, December of the spring, December of the spring, what exactly is Brennan telling them or where is he telling them he's getting the information from? Clearly not St clearly not steel he's in a bunch of interviews saying i didn't hear about steel stuff till much later i think he was lying to the fbi so when the fbi gets the information from steel later it seems like it's wow this has to be true joe we heard the same thing from brennan. Ladies and gentlemen, are Brennan's people and others working with Steele and not telling

the FBI? Well, let's go back to Lisa Page from the FBI's sworn testimony, which I believe she's telling the truth about, which I think confirms my operating thesis here that Brennan duped the FBI into starting this, telling them, I've got information about Russians. Meanwhile, it's the same information the FBI is getting from Steele because I believe Steele and his partners know a whole lot more about their workings with Brennan than they're letting on. Let's go to Page's testimony up on the Hill. Let's read this. So the great Mark Meadows, who's leaving his position in Congress, unfortunately, what a great guy. Love Mark Meadows. What a warrior. He says to Lisa

Page a while ago, this is sworn testimony, sworn testimony folks he says you know we there are multiple sources she says lisa page fbi alert she goes i do know that she says i do know the information ultimately found its way to a lot of different places certainly in october of 2016 listen to this but if the cia as early as august in fact had those same reports i'm not aware of that meadows says so you say our source is your source. Is that because he was working for you? Page? No, sir.

Meadows. Well, I mean, how could he be? Is he exclusively your source? They're talking about steel. Page says, listen to this. Don't ever forget this. I strongly believe she's telling the truth. Meadows is asking her, is Steele exclusively your

source? Lisa Page responds under oath, I don't know. If the CIA had Mr. Steele open as a source, I would not know that. Ladies and gentlemen, Lisa Page has been a lot of things in this case. Ladies and gentlemen, Lisa Page has been a lot of things in this case. I don't think she's lying here. I am, again, am not absolving the FBI of their massive Comey malfeasance, FBI upper level malfeasance in this case at all. They worked a case by January of 2017. If they interview Christopher Steele's sources, they know is total garbage and bunk. They know it for a fact and

they keep doing it. Massive malfeasance, as bad as what Brennan did. But the initiation of this case, I have been a federal agent, ladies and gentlemen, a moment of personal privilege. If I may take it on my show, I have been there. I've been down this road. I have seen, and this is self-deprecating, it's not meant to be some compliment. I have been there and seen how the hysteria around cases develop when you think you're onto something. And ladies and gentlemen, what comes out? Horse blinders. I've been there. I can't give you the details on it. It would be unethical, but I can give you kind of a broad overview. There was a very specific case simply I got from the postal inspection service that involved a very famous person it was the subject of a movie the case ladies and gentlemen was not very good but

the hysteria took over the office and it was sold to me and others as a bigger case than it really was because everybody was so excited about it we're only human beings yeah nothing happened nothing unethical happened i'm not even sure if it was prosecuted but it turned into a big fight with me and this postal inspector it was a mess and it was all because of exactly what happened here the fbi sitting in their office cia just came over joe brennan's people are telling us they've got a trump campaign guy colluding with the russians folks this is coming from brennan the uk and steel the whole operation this is happening in the spring oh my gosh look at all of a sudden christopher steel who they don't know fed them this information pops up again in the fall of that same year guys you're never going to believe this we've got a source christopher

steel telling us the same thing brennan told us of course he's telling you the same thing but he's told brennan but they didn't know that. So they're probably like, this is great. Look at this. It's confirmed. It's true. Now, all right, before I get to this, I've got to get to a spot, but I want to show you how, again, keep in mind,

I always say, tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them and tell them what you told them. Brennan's story, I didn't know about Steele until December of 2016 is not true. That's what he told the FBI. Brennan clearly had this information or some component of Steele's information and how Steele got it in the spring. And I believe misled the FBI into believing it was credible intelligence. I'm going to show you where I think this network began in a minute, in a left-wing outlet that I think has already exposed this story, and CNN video my wife found, which is really a good job. Hat tip to Paula. Before we get to that, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell. Go to GenuCell.com, enter Dan30 at checkout for their special holiday deal. Ladies and gentlemen, we love GenuCell. There's only one week left for Chamonix's Christmas and holiday sale.

Time is running out on Chamonix's best promotion of the year. Imagine the double chin and turkey neck. Imagine that turkey neck gone with the famous genu cell breakthrough jawline treatment with mdl technology your turkey neck joke gets worse every time you know i love you but it is getting it's degenerating quickly from now until christmas get the classic genu cell for eye bags and puffiness free plus genu cells immediate effects for results in 12 hours got a hot date genu cells immediate effects is for you holiday party genu's immediate effects is for you. Holiday party? GenuCell's immediate effects is for you. Look 10, 15, 20 years younger right now before your eyes, guaranteed a 100% of your money back. But your

order today is even more special. Chamonix is partnered with Women Rising to give the same exact package you get to a woman seeking support and assistance from domestic violence. Go to GenuCell, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com. Enter Dan30, Dan30 at checkout for an extra special discount. Your order today includes GenuCell XV anti-wrinkle treatment. It will be upgraded to priority shipping for free. Order now and get surprise luxury stocking stuffer, a surprise just in time for Christmas day. Get your GenuCell holiday package at GenuCell.com. That's GenuCell.com. All right. Hey, one more thing, folks, before we get back to this, I want to show you again

how Brendan knew about this and he's making this up. If you go to Bongino.com, our website, we have mugs, t-shirts, sweaters, hoodies, all that stuff. Pick them up before the holidays. I can't guarantee it'll arrive by Christmas now because we use a third-party shipper, but we donate our proceeds, all of them, and then some to a scholarship fund for local kids that we don't profit from that at all. So if you'd like to, and you want some Dan Bongino show gear, and you want to support a good cause, you are doing a good thing. Go to bongino.com. We don't advertise it a lot, but it's there at the website, our shirts and mugs and all that kind of stuff. So check it out. Again, we donate all of

that and then some over to charity. So we appreciate okay so again brendan's story i didn't hear about steel until december i'm good don't you worry i told the fbi about russian contacts but i heard that from other kids oh yeah sure you did let's look at this piece in the guardian because this is just fascinating isn't it the guardian a left-leaning a left-leaning outlet by the way this is just fascinating. The Guardian, a left-leaning outlet, by the way. This is not some conservative outlet. This is by Luke Harding and written in November of 2019. Just recently. UK knew in 2016 of Trump's suspicious links to Russia book claims.

What book? Oh, the book by fusion gps oh the people paid by hillary clinton to gin up these fake russian charges that came from brennan christopher steel and a network in the united kingdom so now we know that this is interesting because one of steel's buddies a guy used to head one of the uk intelligence agencies a guy by the name of Richard Dearlove, who knows Steele. Dearlove is vouched for Steele. Dearlove said this in the piece. This is where I'm telling you, folks, we have been on this thing.

We have nailed this from day one. This is why the New York Times is panicking and freaking out. The Fusion GPS book claims Dearlove then surprised Steele, Christopher Steele, by indicating that he was already aware that the British government had suspicions about links between Russia and members of the Trump campaign. It seemed the British government had made a political decision not to push the matter further. Wow. This is really fascinating, isn't it? So Christopher Steele's dossier, the only allegation anywhere that trump is colluding with the russians

appears in the steel dossier so steel starts talking to his buddy the former head of british intel richard dearlove and dearlove says oh no no we already know about basically trump colluding with the russians you do you do rich that's funny because trump wasn't colluding with the russians and there is no actual evidence. So what exactly is Dear Love talking about, Joe? What exactly does Dear Love know? And where is Dear Love getting this information? And is Steel really giving information to Dear Love or is Dear Love giving information to Steel?

Oh, dear. Well, let's go back to this gem of a cnn interview a couple of years ago i had an interview with cnn peace yeah it's about a minute long keep in mind a segment that has never been pulled off the air and never been refuted because you may say oh dan the uk feeding information to brennan's cia that somehow finds its way to steal and back into the dossier? Come on. That's a conspiracy theory, Dan. I mean, you right wingers, you never get the story right, right?

Okay, you don't need to hear it from me. Let's hear it from CNN. Check this out. CNN has learned that British and European intelligence intercepted communications between Trump associates and Russian officials and other Russians known to Western intelligence during the US presidential campaign and shared those communications with their US counterparts, multiple US and Western officials tell CNN. These sources stress that at no point did Western intelligence, including Britain's GCHQ, which is responsible for communications surveillance, target these Trump associates.

Instead, their communications were picked up as incidental collection during routine surveillance of known Russian targets. The U.S. and Britain are part of the so-called Five Eyes Agreement, along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which calls for open sharing among member nations of a broad range of intelligence. This new information comes as former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page provides a confusing, even conflicting story about his contacts with Russian intelligence. He has denied that he was a foreign agent. that he was a foreign agent. Hat tip, the wonderful Paula. Somehow, there was no place. How did I miss that?

I've had the article. Did you get that? That's CNN, folks. That's not Fox. It's not the Dan Bongino show. It's not a John Solomon article. That's CNN. Laying out the whole scandal for you,

clear as day. But don't worry, folks. They put in a little proviso at the end and caveat up to buy don't worry joe it was all part of just incidental collection by the united kingdom okay so the uk was spying on american citizens associated with the trump campaign but it was all by accident it was incidental it was just incidental stuff so just to be clear joe yeah 330 million americans there's probably i don't know maybe 500 000 uh people who've spoken to people in russia maybe 50 to 100 000 that speak to people in russia regularly probably five six thousand lawmakers at the federal state local level who for for some reason, international diplomacy, business dealings,

lobbying, whatever, deal with Russia. But, Joe, magically, the UK found Carter Page of all of that communication, fascinating, and decided to only pass that guy's stuff over to the Intel associates in the United States,

which they mean the CIA. Crazy. Crazy. Yeah, crazy. Totally insane how that all by chance, Joe. Total randos. They just found it was just Carter Page. Don't worry, Joe.

It was all incidental. Okay, we're cool. So just to be clear. Of all the political campaigns, politicians, House of Representatives members, senators, governors, mayors, people who deal with Russia all the time for various business, geopolitical, diplomacy reasons, State Department officials. It was only the Trump campaign officials that the UK picked up incidentally and decided to pass on to the CIA. on to the CIA and it conveniently CNN themselves says well and they found this guy Carter Page who then conveniently shows up in a dossier later about a fake bribe he supposedly was involved in with the Russians that's totally made up so let me walk through just to wrap this segment up because I do have other things to get to including was the president even impeached the answer at this

point is clearly no we'll get to that let me the president even impeached? The answer at this point is clearly no. We'll get to that. Let me just walk through to you what happened here. It's becoming pretty clear, Joe, that the United Kingdom was spying on behalf of the Obama administration on Trump campaign members. Pretty clear. Don't worry. It was incidental. Yeah.

Okay. Whatever. Just stop the BS. Don't waste anybody's time. That information, I I believe was done with the knowledge of US officials if not at the specific request of US officials

hey UK can you spy on our guys well why don't you spy on them because we can't they have laws against that stuff but if you do it send it back to London and then send it over to our CIA and then send it back to us in the United States, we could just say, you guys found this stuff and we didn't ask you to find it. Then finds its way to Brennan, magically finds its way to a law firm that finds its way to

Fusion GPS and then finds its way to Steele. Did Steele really write the dossier? Or did Steele get the information from the Brits who passed it to the UK, who passed it to the CIA, who passes it to Brennan, who passes it to Perkins Coie, who hands it off to Steele later on and says, hey, Steele used to work with the Russians. Why don't you write this little story about Carter Page? We'll get the FBI to spy on him for us. And then once we spy on Carter Page, we can spy on the whole campaign. Remember the two hop rule. Libs, I know you're taking a victory lap

over the IG report, which is bizarre because the IG report was damning enough. I'm telling you right now, you have no idea what's coming. I am strongly, I am not your friend. I never will be. I'm simply suggesting to you as a fellow citizen of the strongest possible terms, you should seriously think about this before you take any victory laps over Spygate.

I'm telling you with the absolute confidence. I don't know who's going to jail. That's not, I'm not getting into that. I'm not going to get into predictions. Who's going to go to jail. I'm not getting into that. I'm not going to get into predictions. Who's going to go to jail? I'm not going to. All I'm telling you is the information that I'm sure Durham has and Bill Barr. It's worse than you can imagine.

And your victory lap is way, way premature. You think Barr's conversation with McCallum was done haphazardly? You think that New York Times piece last night, trying to get out ahead of it? What was their narrative, Joe? Narrative test. Here was their narrative. It's all political. Trump's going after Brennan because it's politics. No, no, no. That was put out last night for one specific reason. They know Brennan's nailed to the wall. Brennan lied. Brennan said he didn't have Steele's information. Brennan clearly had Steele's information. The only open question is, did he lie to the FBI about it? And who gave the information to Steele? If that information wasn't Steele Brennan, but was Brennan's people Steele? Oh, Houston, do we got a problem?

And a big one. All right, let me do this final read and then we got a problem? And a big one. All right, let me do this final read, and then we got a lot more to get to, including, again, what I told you before. Was POTUS, was the president even impeached? Even lefties are saying no, so we can kind of give up on that narrative for now. The president wasn't even impeached yet.

Before we get to that, one of my favorite sponsors, the Duke, the Duke. Ladies and gentlemen, can a bar of soap like this? This is a bar. This is not a brick. This is a bar of soap. Can it be patriotic? It's a lot to ask.

You say it's just a bar of soap after all. It doesn't get out a little flag and wave it around. It is patriotic. You want to smell like manhood? Duke Cannon. Duke Cannon, superior quality grooming goods for hardworking men tested by soldiers, not boy bands. You want to smell like manhood? Duke Cannon.

You want manhood emanating from every pore? Duke Cannon solid cologne. You want to smell like manhood out of the shower? Duke Cannon's patriotic bar of soap. Smell like a campfire, baby. Duke Cannon partners with active duty military, develop new ideas and review products. Anything doesn't meet the high standards of soldiers. Doesn't happen.

Duke Cannon, Duke Cannon cologne. Look at this little chunk missing. I have bought cause I use this stuff. Right? Paula. Duke Cannon is committed to giving back to men and women serving our country that you should come over and say hello that's why a portion of their proceeds directly support veterans causes duke cannon sells everything you need for manhood and nothing you don't

they're big ass brick of soap you hear that that? That's soap. A man's soap. Modeled after the rough-cut brick-style soap used by G.I.s. News Anchor Pommade. The perfect blend of medium hold matte finish and sandalwood scent. Beard wash, superior grade shaving cream, and a solid cologne. A foolproof way to smell good

on the go, especially for those holiday parties and for date nights at home. Cologne bomb that's DSA friendly and doesn't make you smell like you were attacked by the mall perfume lady. Check out their products. Go to Duke Cannon, D-U-K-E Cannon, C-A-N-N-O-N.com right now. Get 15% off your first purchase with the promo code Bongino. Smell like manhood.

Be a man. Be the best man you can be. DukeCannon.com right now. Promo code Bongino. Free shipping on orders over $35. DukeCannon.com right now. Promo code Bongino. You have no idea how much I love this stuff.

I don't even consider that a commercial. That's almost a segment on the show. I know it's an ad and I have to tell you it's an ad because it is, they paid for it. But in my head, I consider it part of the show. I love it so much. Okay, getting back to the content. Was President Trump even impeached?

Well, the answer, according to a left wing, and believe me, a left wing professor, is no. Now, before I put this piece up, if I'm using a piece on Bloomberg, you know it's devastating because the whole idea of BonginoReport.com, which is our conservative alternative to the Drudge Report, thanks to many of you to going there, BonginoReport.com, a lot of you made it your homepage, which I appreciate, was to get away from left wing sources Drudge keeps using. So if I'm using one, it's got to be bad. This is an article

written on Bloomberg by, was it Noah Feldman, who is a left-winger. Noah Feldman, he was one of the guys, I believe, who testified at the impeachment hearing against Trump. Here's the piece of Bloomberg opinion. It's in the show notes. Believe me, it's worth your time, even though it's at Bloomberg. Trump isn't impeached until the House tells the Senate. So folks, Nancy Pelosi thought she pulled a fast one yesterday, right? She thought she pulled a fast one with this Trump impeachment charge saying, we're not going to forward the articles of impeachment until Mitch McConnell holds the Senate trial like we say so. Well, somebody sent me a meme yesterday I put out on my Instagram

account. I'm at D. Bongino on Instagram. Thank you to the viewer, listeners who sent this in. It was Bane from the Batman Dark Knight movie, the Tom Hardy character. Remember that? When the CEO, he meets the CEO and the CEO starts yelling at Bane, who's like a real BA, bad as you know. And he's telling him I'm in no worries the CEO tells tells Bain big monster Bain he goes no worries I'm in charge here and Bain says do you feel like you're in charge he then kills him which we don't want to happen that's the movie but he sent me the meme of Bain do you feel like you're in charge so I asked asked the house Democrats, you really feel like you're in charge right now? We have left-wing professors saying, are you serious? You didn't even impeach the president,

but Dan, they took the vote. Doesn't matter. You don't forward the vote onto the Senate. Nobody's been impeached. President Trump should come out every day and put out a, he should put out a little counter on whatever their website is their official campaign website uh whatever two days since the fake impeachment not real impeachment has happened they should just put a counter it's not real they didn't forward it to the senate what is it article one section three of the constitution the senate has the sole sole power to try impeachments pelosi's done. She is not in charge here. We need Tom Hardy in the Bane character. I don't know if he's a left

winger or not. He probably wouldn't do it. Do you feel like you're in charge? We need Dana Lash right now. She does a much better Bane voice than I do. Dana Lash has the best Bane voice ever. Seriously. If you ever heard Dana do Bane, she does it so much better.

The time for fear is later, doctor. She does it so good. They're not in charge, Nance. It's over. You're humiliating yourself. Showing you again how awful this impeachment has gone for them. You know, there's a bunch of statistics

and numbers I've shared with you with them many times, but it's worth repeating. Swing state polls, support for impeachment is down. Support for impeachment amongst independents, down. Minority voters support spiking. Trump's approval up six points. And folks, here's two numbers I have for you. I just want to quickly throw out there.

The Trump campaign on the day of impeachment, the day, raised $5 million. One day. Ladies and gentlemen, I ran for office three times. We didn't raise $5 million, I don't think, on all three campaigns combined. We got close, but we didn't, on one day. The RNC in the month of November, a record haul of 20.6 million.

Do you feel like you're in charge? Not working out quite like you thought, Nance, huh? Kind of tough. Now, I got a bit of video from last night's disastrous democrat debate these these things just keep getting worse last time it's so dumb i you know joe was probably joe right every day after debate i usually send you like 100 clips and joe's joe never complains about anything he doesn't but i got to imagine and if i'm wrong joe tell me that the day after a debate you wake up and go damn i know it's going to be a busy work day because you know i'm going to send you

back exactly somebody let he was expecting 50 clips this morning and we only had four and he's The day after a debate, you wake up and go, damn, I know it's going to be a busy work day because you know I'm going to send you back. Somebody let off a gun bomb. And he was expecting 50 clips this morning and we only had four. And he's probably like, wow, this is, what happened? Is Dan taking a dirt nap? Did he have a heart attack last night? What happened? No, it was just so dumb, the debate. I could only find one thing of interest.

Well, two. One's the moderator. But one thing of interest from a candidate that was even worth your time because it was so dumb. Folks, I've described this campaign to you as a disaster for the moderator. But one thing of interest from a candidate that was even worth your time because it was so dumb. Folks, I've described this campaign to you as a disaster for the Democrats. And I try, listen, I am a devout partisan. I think you understand that. I'm a conservative, but I'm telling you this in the most nonpartisan way, why the Democrats are in trouble. Almost every election has three lanes and only three lanes to victory. Don't ever forget this. There's the establishment safe pick lane. There's the ideologue lane, like the so-called radical, like the leftist or like what they would call for us, the Tea Party guy.

I don't believe that's radical. I'm just saying what they would call. So you have the establishment safe pick, the radical, and then you have the outsider lane. Donald Trump took the outsider lane in the last election and won. This election for the Democrats, all three leaders in those lanes are occupied by people who don't fit the label. Let's start with the outsider pick, Buttigieg. He's not an outsider, folks. He's run for office multiple times. He got crushed in a state race in Indiana. He got crushed running

for DNC chair, and he's done a terrible job as the mayor of South Bend. He's not an outsider. Trump was a legit outsider. So your outsider is not an outsider. Big problem, folks, when you're running as an outsider. That's his brand, but it's not. Who's the radical pick? Well, you go up in the air between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Well, what's the radical pick? Well, you go up in the air between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Well, what's the problem with both of them? Warren used to be a Republican, number one, and she's a millionaire. And number two, Bernie's a millionaire too, and says crazy stuff all the time. He's not the radical either. He's a standard old millionaire. Not a bad thing. I'm a capitalist. But when you're a leftist radical

and you want a true believer, you don't want a millionaire who runs against millionaires. So their outsider lane is dead too. Dead in the water. I mean, politically speaking. Right. Now, what's the problem with Biden?

Getting back to our clip. Folks, he's not even going to get past going. He's supposed to be the safe pick like Romney was supposed to be for us and that was a disaster folks Biden can't get out of his own way listen to this cut last night remember Hillary Clinton's infamous line about how she was going to put coal miners out of business in the 2016 campaign you remember that I'm not going to play the club. Most of you've heard of it. Hillary, we're going to put coal workers out of business. Meanwhile, people in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and coal states were like, okay, thanks. We're voting for Trump.

You would think they would have learned from that. Not Joe Biden, the supposed safe pick, who is now taking Hillary's dumb line and adding his own particular edge to it. Here's his answer last night. If he's going to fire people because of green policies who work in the energy industry. Check this out. Vice President Biden, I'd like to ask you, three consecutive American presidents have enjoyed stints of explosive economic growth due to a boom in oil and natural gas production. As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of blue collar workers in the interest of transitioning to

that greener economy? The answer is yes. The answer is yes. Folks, listen, again, I ran for office. I know what it's like. Came close and won, lost two other ones, got routed pretty bad. I get calls from candidates all the time asking me for advice. Not a lot of it's good. I don't mean not good advice. I get calls from candidates all the time asking me for advice. Not a lot of it's good. I don't mean not good advice. I mean, a lot of it's not good. Politics is an awful place. It's terrible. I don't make any apologies. I thank the Lord every day for the opportunities and the blessings he's put upon me. And me losing that race for us was the best thing that ever happened because my fight was not there. It's here. But I'm telling you, each race,

I learned something. Folks, this guy is not the safe pick. I'm telling you each race I learned something folks this guy is not the safe pick I'm telling you candidly and in the most non-partisan way I can from a self-avowed partisan but I'm trying to take my head out this is the worst establishment safe pick candidate in modern times I'm not kidding worse than Romney worse than Dukakis where this guy is awful Biden he doesn't know what state he's in and I'm telling you I believe me I am not contrary to my square jaw and generally mean look I promise you I'm not a mean guy I'm a big teddy bear and anyone who knows me can tell you that I have a horrendous temper but temper, but I'm loyal to my people, and I love my family and my friends, and I've had the same people around me forever.

I'm not a mean guy, and I really genuinely feel bad for this guy. There's something not right, folks. He's 77 years old. His time has passed. He said dumb things in his 50s and 60s. He said dumb things in his 50s and 60s. This is not ageism. It's just, this is not right. He cannot seem to get out of his own way. He says things that are just bizarre. He doesn't know what state he's in. He comes out and repeats talking points that basically lost the election for Hillary.

He can't seem to get a coherent message about what he stands for. It's really tough to watch. The Secret Service agents I knew on his detail, listen, outside of the guy's politics, he said he was generally a nice guy. I don't, he really seriously needs to reconsider this, folks. He is the worst safe establishment pick

we have had in decades. Joe, I'll throw this out have you ever seen a think about have you ever seen a worse a worse candidate who was supposed to be the safe pick no i mean we've seen worse candidates yeah yeah but not not worse safe picks than this i mean you want this guy carrying the football i don't think so a good point exactly it's i i'm telling there's something going on there yeah somebody has to step in and say, Joe, you did your thing. The Democrats love you. You did your Obama thing. You were a dutiful vice president. Great. It's time to go, man. He is not the safe. They're in a lot of trouble,

folks. A lot. All right, let me get this other video in the interest of time. Here's the moderator. They're not moderators. They're all activists. It was Politico and PBS, so let's not pretend they were actual debate moderators. But here's the debate moderator showing that she's actually a contestant in the debate and not a moderator. Listen to what she says about wage growth in the economy and how she just completely makes up this question, which isn't a question. It's really an assertion about how low wage earners are doing just as well now as they were under the Obama administration. Wage earners, although it's completely not true. Check this out. Addressed to Vice President Biden, and that is the overall U.S. economy right now looks strong. The unemployment rate is at historic lows. Unemployment among African

Americans is down. The markets are booming. Wages, while not growing as much as many would like, they're still doing about as well as they were in the Obama-Biden era. My question to you- Okay. Okay. That's just simply not true. Again, I know liberals listening, you don't do facts. I don't care who you vote for. Again, I've stopped trying to convince that 20% of the United States may be more the radical left that what you believe in is insane. It is. I can't convince you. Clearly, you know, the mark of a fool is to look at the data in front of you and refute the data.

So the question was, well, wages are growing, but not as much as we'd like. And they're growing about as much as they were under the Obama administration. Folks, that's not true. You want the actual number? The average wage growth under the Trump administration in the last two and a half years has been 3.1%. Again, those are just facts. I know you have a problem with that. So if the questioner, the moderator there, if her question is accurate, you would think, Joe, she says, oh, it's the same as under the Obama administration, that the Obama administration average wage growth, Joe, would be 3.1%, right?

Not hard. This isn't like complicated algorithms here and advanced calculus. When did the Obama administration reach 3.1 percent wage growth in their eight years eight years of the obama biden administration they only reached that number three times three months out of eight years trump has averaged 3.1% wage growth. Again, the purpose of the show is always to give you the mental ammunition you need to go and fight the good fight. As Joe says, everything you need in an hour. If this is the debate moderator who's supposed to be asking questions based on facts and data, parroting leftist talking points, you can only imagine how bad it is in the media and elsewhere

folks it's just not true trump's average wage growth was only hit during three months of the eight years the obama administration is average it's just not true folks they're just making it up all right one final kind of almost tragically comical talking point to show you again how foolish liberals are and how they lie to you all the time. Joe, have we not heard from the libs Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren? Millionaires and billionaires. The worst. We got to raise them taxes on the millionaire. Bernie, you're a millionaire.

Not me. I'm talking about other millionaires. Not me, millionaire. I don't count. I'm a socialist. I don't have to follow the rules. You dopes. Come on, man. We're hypocrites. What have they told us? Warren and the Bernie Sanders brigade. We got to raise the taxes on the rich, man. That's right. We got to cut taxes on the middle class. Yeah, boy. Yep. They've told us that a thousand times, right? Sure have. Of course they have.

Well, why are they pushing a bill now in the House of Representatives that literally will do the exact opposite? Not figuratively. You know, I hate the use of the word literally

unless it literally is literally. Yeah. They are pushing a bill. The Democrats in the House now that will cut taxes for the uber wealthy and raise taxes on the middle class. I'm not kidding. This is a center left leaning website, CBPP.org, center budget priorities.

They have the center for budget policy priorities. This is not a right leaning think tank. They have a piece out. Repealing the SALT cap would be regressive and proposed offset would use up needed progressive revenues. That's a lot. It's a complicated, what are they talking about? Yeah.

Libs in the House and Democrats are pushing a bill to repeal portions of Donald Trump's tax cut bill with the Republican Party. One of the portions of the tax cut bill repealed what's called SALT state and local tax deduction okay you used to be able to deduct from your taxes your state and local taxes right almost to an almost to an unlimited amount so if you live in a high tax state like New York and you're rich and say you're paying a hundred thousand dollars to New York City and New York State in taxes you

could deduct that from your federal tax bill. The Trump tax cut plan got rid of that and said, no, we shouldn't be subsidizing high tax states. We're capping your deduction at $10,000. Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats want to get rid of that. This is a left-leaning think tank. Here are their conclusions, what would happen if you repeal the cap, that Trump put a cap on it.

That it would be regressive and costly. That the top 1% of households would receive 56% of the benefits of the repeal the Democrats are proposing. So the 1%ers, Joe, get it, and the top 5% of households would receive 80% of the benefit.

While the bottom 80% would receive just 4% according to the tax policy center. Folks, you may be saying, I can't be reading this right. So the Democrats are proposing a bill to give a tax cut for their... By the way, I love tax cuts everywhere. I'm just telling you how much of hypocrites they are. They're pushing a bill that would cut taxes for the top 1%, top 5% while railing against the 1% and the 5%. Yes, that's what they're doing.

Here's the second part of this. It's even worse. Almost nobody in middle-income households would benefit. The vast majority of households will benefit from this Democrat tax cut for the wealth. That's their tax cut. They're proposing the vast majority of households in the bottom 80% would be unaffected and would not benefit from it's revealed.

I can go. I love tax. I'm just telling you, I love tax cuts. They are frauds. Why are they doing this? You may add because folks, wealthy liberals in New York and California are being hammered by this cap on what they're allowed to deduct because wealthy people pay a lot of state local taxes and they don't want to pay more federal tax and they are hammering their representatives to get this tax cut reinstituted. And the leftists who supposedly in it for the little guy are the ones pushing for this tax cut.

They are complete total frauds every time, hands down. All right. Thanks again for tuning in, folks. I really appreciate it. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino. We're really trying to get to 400,000 subscribers. We're almost there. We're in like the high 320s right now. So we really appreciate that. YouTube.com slash Bongino. It is totally free. You can also subscribe to our audio podcast on Apple Podcasts,

Google Podcasts. And don't forget Devin Nunes interview coming tomorrow, Saturday. You are not going to want to miss this. We are going to crack this Spygate thing wide open. Long anticipated interview with the great Congressman Devin Nunes. We'll see you all on Monday. Good day, sir. 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.