The Dan Bongino Show - Vindication # 962 (Ep 962)

Episode Date: April 19, 2019

In this episode I address the vindication of Donald Trump and the ridiculous Mueller report, which goes out of its way to harm Donald Trump. News Picks: The Mueller report has been released.    Devin Nunes slams the Mueller report for ignoring the real scandal.    The Trump team warns the Obama era DOJ that Justice will be served.    The Trump legal team responds saying this is a total victory for the President.    Are US intelligence agencies dominated by liberals?   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 all right welcome to the dan bongino show producer joe how are you today oh that's right producer joe i'm sorry we're giving producer joe the day off today i know it's unusual to not hear let me answer for producer joe i'm doing great dad it's friday in the famous producer joe language given he's actually doesn't have the full day off he's No, it's unusual to not hear. Let me answer for producer Joe. I'm doing great, Dad. It's Friday. In the famous producer Joe language. He actually doesn't have the full day off. He's working pretty hard.

But producer Joe deserves it. It's going to be a long weekend. And happy Easter to everyone. It's Good Friday Day, the most solemn day in the Christian year. So I hope you all have a very happy Easter this Sunday. I won't see you. I'll be back on Monday, of course. All right. I got a stacked news day for you today.

I want to give a quick shout out to I ran into a wonderful family yesterday in New York. I was walking down the streets of New York City. I'm in town for the five. I'll be a guest host in Hannity tonight as well on Fox. And this couple stopped me and looked at me with this shocked face, surprised to see me. And I just left Chick-fil-A.

And usually sometimes I keep walking because I'm afraid that, you know, sometimes you don't knowfil-A and usually sometimes I keep walking cause I'm afraid that, uh, uh, you know, sometimes you don't know if people are going to be friendly or not, not afraid of them. I just don't want to get into a conflict in the city with Chick-fil-A in my hand and they were really nice. So to, I was at Mark Claire at Claire was the daughter and Cindy, thank you so much for your kind words. I told you, I give you a shout out. I appreciate it. All right. I've got, uh, the smaller thing broken down for you today. So don't go anywhere. It's going to be, I think, one of our best shows we've ever done. All right. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at BattleBox. Listen,

most subscription boxes are full of junks and samples you'll never use, but not BattleBox. BattleBox is the monthly subscription box for men, box for men, full of solid gear for adventure seekers, survivalists, and outdoor enthusiasts. BattleBox is your monthly subscription for hand-picked outdoor survival and everyday carry gear. BattleBox introduces you to the best products, new gear, and innovative companies at a much lower cost than if you were to buy them individually. Plus, who doesn't like to get a package full of mystery adventure gear? Go to trybattlebox.com slash Dan.

There's no E in that. That's trybattle, B-A-T-T-L-B-O-X.com slash Dan, and pick the box up you want. They start at just $25 a month. Plus, they release a video for each new box so you can see what's coming and how to use it. They've shipped over a half a million boxes and they won best men's subscription box of 2017. Sign up today and be ready for anything. Go to trybattlebox.com slash Dan and get a free tactical knife when you sign up for your first box. Check it out. Yes, let's get going's get going okay first let me start with some videos from yesterday so the muller report came out it comes out yesterday we see it read it i was up all night

uh i've hence my i'm taking this slow a little show a little slower today i was up until about 1 30 last night i am almost done with it i'm not going to spin your wheels. I've got about 30, 40 more pages to go. It's a pretty easy read. I will include a link to it in today's show notes through a Washington Examiner piece that's quite good. I suggest you read it yourself. Don't take anyone's word for what's in it. But the top line headline is this.

Trump is clearly 100% exonerated of any collusion charges. There's no doubt about that anymore. That's out. But on the, Mueller does something strange, which you probably heard about the obstruction charge, where he doesn't exonerate Trump. And he says that in the report, but that's not, it was never Mueller's job. Mueller's job as a prosecutor was to prove a crime,

not to prove that there was evidence of a crime, but also evidence of a non-crime and then leave an open question it was absurd what muller did and i'm going to get to that later because it's important you understand what the game he was playing but first let me play an excellent clip from just the somber panel on cnn where uh republican mary catherine ham who i know is very nice uh really drops the hammer on cnn and watch the silence as the CNN panel has to somberly accept the fact that collusion is dead as a doornail here right now is they found no evidence or insufficient evidence of conspiracy right look I hope nobody missed leg day because carrying these

goal posts they're going to be very heavy if you want to do it for the next 18 months because the idea coalescing that the idea of collusion which everyone we all know used for two years as a shorthand for a conspiracy in a large criminal sense um the idea that we did not use that for that um and that conclusion does not matter and that therefore it's like somehow improper to point out that there was no collusion as we meant it for the last two years uh i think is an operation in gaslighting um there was no collusion it is good news it's great news he wasn't a foreign asset what a great line i i hope it's leg day i hope it's like that because you got to carry the goalposts so hat tip to mary catherine ham for dropping that tactical nuke

on that cnn panel that was a shockingly small cnn panel there was only four people they usually have about 27 people on cnn panels but you would expect the democrats to now give up now that muller has concluded there he could not establish any link between the russians and the trump campaign with respect to collusion you would think it would go away and the people and the collusion truthers and the hoaxers out there who propagated this myth for the last two years would be embarrassed, humiliated, would apologize, walk away in shame and turn in their journalistic licenses and all their street cred with it. But no, they're

continuing to double down. They're doubling down because you have absolute lunatics like Adam Schiff, a Democrat congressman from California, Shifty Schiff, who comes out with this ridiculous statement yesterday because he cannot give up the fact that he has been the lead gaslighter on this ridiculous, absurd collusion hoax forever. The report outlines multiple attempts by the president to mislead the country, to interfere with the investigation, to make false statements to the American people, and to urge others to lie to the American people, to urge those of his staff to take actions to further obstruct the investigation, which may have been refused, but they were not refused owing to any goodwill or good motive on the president's part, far to the contrary.

That these actions had a material impact on the investigation, that in fact the special counsel was deprived of information or at least the timely access to that information as a result of things that the president did and said. It made our job, certainly in our committee doing our investigation, that much more difficult as it did the special counsel's investigation. Those acts of obstruction of justice, whether they are criminal or not, are deeply alarming in the President of the United States. And it's clear that Special Counsel Mueller wanted the Congress to consider the repercussions and the consequences. It is clear the Special Counsel believed that no one was above the law, and that includes the President of the United States. The Attorney General's actions would make the President above the law, would make the President such that he cannot commit the crime of obstruction of justice.

That was not the special counsel's view. If the special counsel, as he made clear, had found evidence exonerating the President, he would have said so. He did not. He left that issue to the Congress of the United States, and we will need to consider it. Okay, Adam Schiff is now firmly established as the new Baghdad Bob of politics, okay? Remember Baghdad Bob? For those of you too young to remember the Iraq War, when we invaded Iraq and annihilated and decimated the Iraqi army, there was a PR spokesman, and for Saddam Hussein, he earned the moniker Baghdad Bob

because he would get up in front of the cameras and he would say, we're fine. We are repelling the invaders, the Saddam Hussein army. We are doing great. And they were getting smoked at every turn. It was nonsense. Okay. It was total crap. He was making it up. Adam Schiff is now the Baghdad Bob of politicians. This guy's a joke. He's an embarrassment. I just wanted to start off the show to the set the set the tone here so we have the lead here the real narrative is now we know collusion is dead the subsequent democrat liberal media ridiculous lunatic narrative is going to be well he didn't exonerate him as if it's a new standard of justice on the obstruction charge so let's get to what's really in the report so you have the analysis uh you can go and uh debate your liberal friends a couple couple of takeaways. Number

one, this is from the actual report. It's not what the Mueller report says at times that should matter to you. It's what the Mueller report doesn't say that is highly suspicious. Now, for those of you who've been following me from the start on this, right, the Mueller probe was gathered, was chartered initially by Rod Rosenstein, giving Mueller his special counsel authority to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and any crimes that would have resulted thereof. Russian interference. Now, what's suspicious about this, when it comes to Papadopoulos and the Papadopoulos meeting, they leave a whole bunch of things out of this. Now, they go into detail about Papadopoulos.

They talk about all these meetings with Joseph Mifsud, this Maltese professor. They never disclose in there, in the report, that Mifsud, the Maltese professor, who's alleged to have told Papadopoulos about the Russian emails and the Russian dirt, they never allege in there that Mifsud has connections to Western intelligence.

Leave this piece up for a second. He goes through this long long extended narrative, Mueller, which I'm going to explain this whole thing, what this Mueller reported. It's nothing but a spy novel he wrote as a roadmap to impeachment for Trump. So he lays out all these Russian connections between Mifsud and alleging, in other words,

that Mifsud got this information somehow, hinting at the fact that he may have got it from the Russians, but he never mentions that Mifsud's connected to Western intelligence. But here's the kicker. At the end of one of the Papadopoulos sections where he goes, his heart is ripping out of his chest to say how Papadopoulos met with this guy with Russian connections. Notice the last line here I pulled out for you. No documentary evidence and nothing in the email accounts or other communication facilities reviewed by the office of special counsel shows that Papadopoulos shared this information with the campaign.

So, again, it's not what's in the report. It's what's not. He talks about George Papadopoulos, a Trump foreign policy advisor, meeting with this guy, Joseph Mifsud, who they go crazy trying to establish Mifsud's connection. He traveled to Moscow. He knows Russians. They don't mention in there that Mifsud is also deeply tied to UK intelligence and other intelligence entities around the world. They leave all of that out. And then at the end, in an alleged conspiracy where Papadopoulos was told about this Russian dirt

and was supposed to have told the campaign about it, where they coordinated with the Russians, what does he do? At the end, after telling this whole fantastic story, he writes, oh, and by the way, he didn't share any of that with the campaign. Folks, this is nothing but a spy novel. All right, I got a lot to get through. That's takeaway number one. So takeaway number one wasn't in there. He misses the Western intelligence angle to Mifsud. He misses entirely. He waits to the end to tell you that all these connections to Russia, none of this was passed on to the campaign at all. It moved into a Papadopoulos black hole. Secondly, this is a little bit more fascinating. This is about the Trump Tower meeting.

Folks, this is ridiculous. Mueller writes up this Trump Tower meeting through just page upon page, the infamous June 9 Trump Tower meeting between Don Trump Jr., a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and a Russian intelligence person. Oh my gosh, here we go. Russian collusion. We've got it. We've really nailed them down. This whole big backstory to how this publicist emails Don Jr. and wants to set up this meeting with these two Russians. And he goes through all these connections and all these connections to the Russian government, how Veselnitskaya was connected to the Russian government, how Rinat Akitskaya was connected to the Russian government, how Rinat Akhmetch and the other Russian guy who shows up,

how they're all connected to the Russians. But notice in here, you got to read the footnotes in the report too, folks. They're fascinating. These are the footnotes. You don't have to read through the whole thing on the screen, but it's important. Just leave it up for a second in case the audience wants to check this out.

And for those on audio, don't worry. I'll sum up exactly what's here. I'm the audio audience. You guys come first, always. In the footnotes, it's not what's in there. It's what's not in there. They go through all this explanation in the footnotes about how Veselnitskaya worked for Prevazan.

So this Russian lawyer that shows up to meet with Don Jr., they basically give her resume. She knew people in the Russian government, how she worked with Prevazan on this contract, how she had all these deals, and they never mentioned anywhere in there that she was working for Fusion GPS as well, the company hired by Mrs. Clinton. Nowhere in there is that mentioned. Nowhere in the report is it mentioned that Rinatak mentioned the Russian intel guy that shows up has already stated publicly he knew people on the Clinton campaign. It's not mentioned that his lawyer was the spouse of a former Bill Clinton, a bureaucrat, a high-level bureaucrat in his

administration. None of that is mentioned anywhere in there. None of it. It's all left out. They give you a... So this is the curious part, folks, and I'm asking you a serious question. So if you read the report, especially about the Papadopoulos so again in papadopoulos they leave out mifsud's western intelligence connections they also uh you know conveniently throw in just at the end that papadopoulos never shared any of this with the campaign but secondly on the trump tower meeting he goes through this long-winded explanation to set up this russian narrative about how deeply connected these people were who showed up to the tower to putin and the r government, but never mentions at all that they're working with the company connected to Hillary Clinton. I mean, the reason I bring this up, and I want to rewind to the beginning of the

show when I was mentioning this, is I thought the purpose of the Mueller probe was to investigate Russian interference in the election. That's what we were told, correct? But when you get actual evidence of Russian interference, in other words, paid political contracts to a company called Fusion GPS that's also working with a Russian lawyer that shows up to talk to Don Jr. suspiciously,

with suspiciously set up meeting, nobody mentions that at all. You don't find that a little bit interesting? Now, one other thing. There's another footnote buried in there. You know what? Let me hat tip Paul Sperry here. Paul Sperry's done some good work. This is a tweet from Paul Sperry who uncovered this. I found this last night after seeing his tip. You go through Twitter. If you follow Sean Davis, undercover Huber, Jeff Carlson,

at Paul Sperry, you can kind of get a cheat sheet to this whole thing. I suggest you read the whole thing too, but there are some real good nuggets in this. So Paul Sperry has a tweet up. He says, hey, buried in a footnote in the Mueller report, this crushes the last remaining hopes of collusion centered on the Trump Tower meeting. This is fascinating. Here's the footnote.

Now, just so you have a little backstory in this footnote. So we're talking about the Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr., right? How this is supposedly for the left, evidence of a massive Russian collusion scheme, right? In the beginning of the report, Mueller goes at length. He talks about the IRA and GRU, the Internet Research Agency and this Russian intel unit called the GRU that were trying to impact the election in the United States through, you know, interference in social media and other things like that. But what's fascinating is the footnote says the investigation did not identify

evidence connecting the events of June 9th and the GRU's hack and dump operation. Okay. So basically the whole first portion of the story where he sets it up as this big operation by the Russian GRU, this Russian intel people, to sow a disinformation campaign in the United States. Again, and a footnote, the investigation established no connection between that and the Trump Tower meeting, while he leaves out the fact that the participants in the Trump Tower meeting were connected, in fact, to Hillary Clinton. Folks, this is such a scam. This report is such a scam.

I'm going to tell you what he did in this report. It's going to make all the sense in the world later on. I was up late last night getting all this information out there for you. So I want to make sure we get to all of it. Okay. On Christopher Steele. Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier. This is fascinating because now we know.

Gosh, I get so much. I'm sorry, folks. I don't want to get lost in this. but we know now what was in the scope memo, the August 2nd scope memo, the revised charter of responsibilities Rosenstein gives Bob Mueller. Mueller's hired in May. In August 2nd, they get a revised set of responsibilities. I told you it was a big scandal what was in there. Now we know why.

I'm going to get to that in a second. But what's interesting about this, Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, the British spy hired by the company, hired by Hillary to go gather up dirt on Donald Trump. Christopher Steele is mentioned almost nowhere in the dossier. There's one passing mention and that's it. Folks, this is fascinating because it steals allegations in

the dossier that are the only evidence we have thus far of any kind of a criminal conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russian government. Understand what I'm saying here. Bob Mueller is chartered with going out and investigating Russian interference in the U.S. election. Bob Mueller's only credible criminal charges against the Donald Trump campaign are in the dossier. The whole dossier story about Manafort and others, that's the only place these criminal charges exist. They are not anywhere else, especially the ones about Carter Page, right? these criminal charges exist. They are not anywhere else, especially the ones about Carter Page, right? That Carter Page story is only in the dossier. You see where I'm going with this? If it's only in the dossier, then why is the dossier barely mentioned at all and Christopher

Steele only mentioned in passing? Maybe because they're trying to minimize the impact of the dossier, trying to pretend the case was about minimize the impact of the dossier, trying to pretend the case was about something else other than the dossier, although it was about the dossier the whole time. Folks, this is getting real good. This report is ridiculous. It's an utter absurdity. He mentions it in just passing. It's completely, totally ridiculous. All right. Let me get to this first. And then I want to get back to some more stuff, including on Michael Cohen, where Mueller, again, belabors this whole big story, tells the story. He's pumping his fist, telling the story about all this Russia stuff. And then he says at the end, well, Papadopoulos didn't tell anyone on

the campaign about the Russian stuff. Well, I thought the campaign colluded in the Trump Tower meeting. Oh, she's worked for the Russians. She worked for the Russians. Yeah, but she worked for Hillary too. He leaves that out. Then he says at the Trump Tower meeting at the end in this little footnote, oh yeah, and by the way, the Russian effort by GRU to impact the election had nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting. A little footnote at the bottom, right? On Christopher Steele, just a little side note in passing about Steele. No extensive analysis of Steele's actual charges, even though those are the only charges that existed in this entire campaign. Ridiculous. All right.

Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Harry's. Harry's. We love Harry's. I don't have to. Sorry. If you only saw what just happened. This show is, I'm telling you, this is the best show out there.

Self-praise things, I know. But Harry's, I have to shave when I don't use Harry's multiple times a day. Once in a while on the road, I'll forget my Harry's razor and it's a huge mistake because I got to shave two or three times and it irritates my face. I don't have that problem with Harry's.

It is the closest shave out there for the best price. I love Harry's razors. They're the best. Join 10 million who've tried Harry's. Claim your trial offer by going to harrys.com slash Bongino. Harry's founders were tired of paying for razors that were overpriced and over-designed. They knew a great shave didn't come from gimmicks like vibrating heads, flexi balls, or handles that look like spaceships.

These tactics leading brands use to raise prices they've been doing it for decades harry's fixed that by combining a simple clean design with quality durable blades at a fair price harry's bought a world-class blade factory in germany it's been making quality blades for over get a load of this 95 years they've received over 20 000 five-star reviews on trust pilot and google harry's replacement cartridges are just two dollars each that's half the price of the Gillette Fusion Pro Shield. All Harry's blades come with 100% quality guarantee. If you don't love them and you don't love your shave, let them know and they'll give you a full refund. You will love it. I only have to shave once because Harry's, the shave is so close.

So when I appear on Fox at night, I use Harry's in the morning. I don't even need a retouch. Here we go. Get a $13 value trial set that comes with everything you need for a close, comfortable shave. You get a weighted ergonomic handle, a five blade razor with a lubricating strip and trimmer blade, rich lathering shave gel, and a travel blade cover. Listeners of my show can redeem this trial set at harrys.com slash Bongino. Make sure you go to harrys.com slash Bongino to redeem your offer and let them know I sent you to help support the show. harrys.com slash Bongino to redeem your offer and let them know I sent you to help support the show. harrys.com slash Bongino.

Redeem your trial set today. Don't miss out. Okay. Again, in the Mueller report. So the tone we're trying to set, sometimes I don't want you to lose the lead. I don't want you to lose the headline. And in the volume of information, sometimes it does get lost. The headline is this.

Sometimes it does get lost. The headline is this. Mueller selectively leaves out information that makes the Trump team look good or he buries it at the end of his report, but then makes a point to exaggerate almost hyperbolically the Russian connections of the players involved as long as it makes the Trump team look bad. The report is a roadmap to impeachment. This is a gift wrap president to lunatic Democrats who want to impeach the Trump team for a crime that never happened. Again, it's not that a bank was robbed and Trump didn't do it. There was no bank robbed. There was never a collusion scandal at all. No one has ever pled guilty to the collusion conspiracy because it didn't happen. You see this again with the Michael Cohen information. The Michael Cohen information is equally as bad in the report. He goes through that. I don't trust Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, as far as I could throw him. I want to be crystal clear on that. But he goes through this long, lengthy explanation about Cohen and Cohen's efforts on the Trump Tower project in Moscow. And then at the end, here we go again.

So you have to go through the whole thing. He goes, first, with regards to Cohen's false statements to Congress, what he's talking about here, just to be clear, is Michael Cohen made some false statements to Congress about when the Trump Tower project negotiations in Moscow ended. He says, while there is evidence described below that the president knew Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the Trump Tower project in Moscow, the evidence available to us does not establish that the president directed or aided Cohen's false testimony. So why are we even talking about it? It has nothing to do with the president. They had no evidence that the president told Cohen a lie about it at all.

Is that why is any of that interesting that Cohen fibbed? OK, write a report about Cohen then. This was about Russian collusion in the election, not a Trump Tower project in Moscow where Cohen fudged the numbers and the president didn't tell him to do it. This is what he does, Mueller. He is telling a story to make it seem

that there are these exaggerated Russian connections amongst these players. You know what? I don't have it up on a screenshot from this because I had so much to get to today and I got more here. But he also does it with the WikiLeaks angle. He goes through this extended explanation about how WikiLeaks now, so you understand the lunatic Democrat theory on what happened in the election. If you don't understand that, what I'm about to tell you about

WikiLeaks and the Mueller report won't make any sense. The Democrat theory on this, which is now debunked, discredited, it's always been debunked, it's nonsense, was that the Russians hacked the DNC in Hillary's emails. They passed the information to WikiLeaks knowingly, and that WikiLeaks then passed the information as a conduit onto the Trump team, and that impacted the election. Why? Because the Trump team had the DNC and Hillary's emails. That story is not true. Please tell me you understand that. That is, it is a functionally nonsensical story. There's no evidence of it. The Mueller report debunks it.

But what happens? Mueller again goes through this extended story about WikiLeaks, how they were working with the GRU people, how they were working with GRU Russian people to get this information out there. You may be thinking right now, if you're following me, but Dan, you just said that WikiLeaks, you know, worked with the right. This is the Democrat story to get the information out there. Isn't Mueller proving them right? No, he doesn't. You have to get through the whole WikiLeaks saga until you find out at the end that WikiLeaks didn't know they were dealing with the Russians. I'm not apologizing for WikiLeaks releasing our classified information at all. That was a really bad move, okay? That's not what I'm

saying. What I'm suggesting to you is WikiLeaks, they acknowledge in the Mueller report, did not know they were dealing with the Russian GRU. Ladies and gentlemen, how can I have a conspiracy with someone to rob a bank that I never meet, don't know, and was never involved with at all? They didn't know it was the Russians. That's not an apology for them. I'm just trying to tell you that the way Mueller writes it up, he writes it up, you see where I'm going with this? To reinforce the Democrat narrative. The Russians knowingly shared information with WikiLeaks, who shared it with the Trump campaign. That is not what happened.

The WikiLeaks people thought they were getting the information from Guccifer, the DC leaks, all these. They didn't know who these people were. Just because a bunch of crimes happened, then a bunch of incidents happened, doesn't mean they're connected. You know, I heard Matt Gaetz, congressman from Florida, he gave a great analogy last night. I hope you take to heart. The analogy was this. He was on, was he on with Tucker? I'm not sure. It was right before. Maybe it was Hannity. I'm sorry. I don't know. But it was a really good analogy. He said,

just because there are two boats in the water headed in the same direction, chartered in the same path, doesn't mean that people know each other or are even met. There are two people going in the same direction to the Bahamas. Oh, they must have coordinated their vacation to the Bahamas together. No, they've never met. They're just two separate boats heading that direction. WikiLeaks was doing their own thing. The GRU was doing their own thing.

And the Trump team was doing their own thing. Please tell me you understand this. But that's not the impression you get when you read the report. Don't take my word for it. When you read it, you read the WikiLeaks chapter, you will leave it thinking, oh my gosh, WikiLeaks did work with the Russians. That is unless you missed the point

at the end where he says, they didn't know they were Russian. In other words, the guy who you're telling me is going to the Bahamas because he knows the guy next to him going to Bahamas had no idea that the guy next to him was actually going to the Bahamas too. Ladies and gentlemen, that's important. Why is it important? Because they're alleging a conspiracy.

A conspiracy requires some knowledge of the intent of others. I hope this isn't too complicated, but this is one of the more important shows I've ever done. And please hang in there with me because it's important because they will not let this go, as you saw by the Adam Schiff, a soundbite there, the video, a conspiracy to rob a bank with five or six of my friends where we're planning it. We go out, we get the weapons, we get plans for the bank. You know, we plan the time, we surveil it. There has to be at some point some knowledge of the other's role in this thing. There has to be. To knowingly conspire with the Russians to hack emails and get them out there,

I have to know they're Russian. That doesn't mean WikiLeaks didn't conspire with someone else, but it's not a Russian collusion story. So you have to ask yourself why, when you read the Mueller report, do they belabor the point over and over and over? They beat it to death. They beat this drum until it tears apart about this Russia thing, despite the fact they have to throw in at the end every time. There's no evidence that they actually knew they were Russian because Mueller is desperate to establish the story of Russian collusion as having some meat on the bone, despite the fact that there was never, ever meat on the bone. It was complete, total nonsense. All right. Elsewhere buried in the report, there are tons of nuggets in this thing. I tried to

pull out the best ones. There's just so many good ones. I'm sorry I have to limit it, but these are the lowlights of the Mueller report. I'll explain the whole purpose of it again. I didn't miss that. On the Sessions front, this just explains how this piece about Sessions and Kislyak and these meetings and the snippet of the Mueller report about it is just incredible. And it goes to show you the deviousness of the Democrats. Listen to this. We have it up on the screen, youtube.com slash Bongino, if you want to check it out. But again, audio side, don't you worry. I will read this for you. Here's a footnote from the piece here.

So Sessions, remember the Democrats pushed really hard to get Sessions recused when he was appointed AG from the Russia probe. Why? Why did they do that? They did that because Sessions was an obvious political ally of Donald Trump. He was. He endorsed him early in the campaign. Now that happens. You don't appoint your political opponents to be your attorney general. That doesn't mean they're going to be biased. It just means that's how politics work. You want your team in there. You're the executive. You get to appoint these people. The Democrats pushed hard to get Sessions out. Why? Because they had an ally in Rod Rosenstein, and they knew it, and they knew Sessions would uncover the whole spying scandal. They needed Sessions out. So one of the things they

did was they pushed this narrative that Sessions had had these meetings with Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, these substantive meetings and had lied about it. Don't forget, Sessions is up on Capitol Hill. He was asked by former Senator Al Franken, Franken, excuse me. He's asked about contacts during his role in the campaign. And he says, no, I didn't have any of these substantive contacts, basically. I just, and he was right.

He had them in the course of being a U.S. Senator, but every Senator has contacts with Russian officials. So just to be clear, we were led to believe by the Democrats, we were led to believe by the Democrats. We were led to believe that these contacts between Senator Sessions, who was a campaign surrogate for the Trump team, that these were substantive contacts with the Russian officials and these corrupted Sessions. And Sessions had no position being the attorney general investigating the Russians. Well, isn't this interesting?

Here's what the Mueller report says about these contacts. Again, entirely blowing the Democrat story out of the water because there's no evidence any of that was true. The Mueller report is crystal clear that the Sessions contacts during the week of the Republican National Convention and his foreign policy speech in D.C. Those are the two contacts, the D. republican national convention and this foreign policy speech in dc those are the two contacts the dc contact and the rnc contact that the democrats alleged corrupted sessions that he was he had to go were quote brief public and get a load of this one non-substantive in other words they were nothing they were exactly what sessions said they were

he shook the guy's hand in passing at a foreign policy speech, along with a bunch of other foreign policy advisors, too. Again, where does I'm not a huge fan of Sessions. I think his recusal destroyed this whole investigation. I don't I don't think what he did was right. I think he put the president in a really awful spot and the Sessions decided himself to recuse based on these ridiculous charges. I don't know why. If he knew they were non-substantive contacts, then what was he worried about? But to be fair,

and I mean this, folks, people I know who know Jeff Sessions, he's a good man. He's a godly man. He's a God-fearing man. He made a mistake. But where does Sessions go now to get his reputation back? All those charges that he was somehow behind the scenes meeting with these substantive meetings with Russian officials turned out to be complete garbage. And you know what? Not one of these hacks in the media is apologizing to Sessions for it, nor is one of these Democrats, the Cory Bookers and Al Frankens of the world, who destroyed this man's reputation, accusing him basically of being a traitor to his country over contacts that were quote, non-substantive and brief. What a joke. There's something else in that piece there I

wanted to highlight there as well. I mean, really, the Mueller report is just a series of debunking a lot of leftist myths. Now you may say, Dan, well, I thought you said the Mueller report was awful and Mueller's intentions were bad, but you're laying out a case where he debunks all this stuff no no no that's not what i'm doing muller had to do this muller couldn't fabricate information believe me they did this painfully putting in this information that the session story was bs the ukraine story uh the ukrainian platform story where they changed the platforms bs all this stuff they had to put in there because they had no evidence otherwise. But even though they had no evidence, they still write these long stories about these Russian connections.

That's my point. Paula, do me a favor. Text me. Is this making sense? What I'm basically trying to tell you, and I need you to understand this, is when you read the report, you'll figure this out yourself. understand this. When you read the report, you'll figure this out yourself. He goes through this long explanation about these Russian connections, Mueller, over and over, how dangerous and all these, thumbs up, thank you, Paula, about these Russian connections. He tells this Tom Clancy story, the Russians were here, the Russians were there, the Russians met with Sessions,

the Russians were at Trump Tower, the Russians, the Russians, the Russians, WikiLeaks. And then at the end, in little snippets and footnotes, instead of just saying in the beginning, hey, none of this stuff was true, he writes, uh, P.S., shh. And by the way, WikiLeaks didn't know they were Russian. And by the way, Sessions' meetings with the Russians were non-substantive. Oh, and by the way, the Don Jr. meeting, that had nothing to do

with the Russian intelligence people hacking the DNC. Okay, thanks, Bob. Then why did you even bother writing this stuff? Because he's laying out a roadmap for the Democrats for impeachment. That's why. He was never investigating collusion. He was keeping an investigation open. He knew he was false, which he documents throughout this report in an effort to lay out steps to obstruct the investigation, even though he knew from the beginning it was all garbage.

Please tell me this makes sense muller knows immediately upon being hired in may of 2017 now does this white house meeting by the way with uh remember he's he's at the white house with rosenstein muller just the day before before he's appointed with with uh muller and rosenstein is at the white house with donald trump allegedly meeting about the FBI director position, which he's not even eligible for. I told you weeks ago what I thought that meeting was about. It's Rosenstein, who I still believe is a snake. Rosenstein taking Mueller to the White House to get to basically get a feel for the Donald Trump saying, hey, you got to check this out because they're going to investigate him the next day.

It's clear as day. Now, how do you not see that? Rosenstein's not a good guy. I can't these people think rosenstein's a good guy well he exonerated trump he had no choice there was no evidence i'll get to the scope memo thing and other stuff too it's going to be a stacked show but don't forget the lead muller tells goes on on hundreds of pages of this russian connection and in one sentence at the end of nearly every one, he's like, ah, and these connections are entirely BS. So why write it? Because he wants ammunition to give to Adam Schiff and the Democrats to use for impeachment because he's going to lay this stuff

out, even though he knew the investigation was bunk from the beginning and then say the investigation he knew was bunk was obstructed. That's why. That's the whole point of this thing. Also, in that Sessions snippet from the Mueller report, there's another piece in there. Remember the story we were told about how Russian influence over the Trump campaign led the Trump campaign to change their platform on Ukraine? Let me just sum this up quickly. The RNC platform on Ukraine, there was a line inserted in there about providing lethal weapons to Ukraine. Let me just sum this up quickly. The RNC platform on Ukraine, there was a line inserted in there about providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, now an enemy of Russia. Russia invaded portions of Eastern Ukraine, right? That was watered down, according to Democrats. And the

Democrat story is, oh, it was watered down because Trump was trying to help the Russians. We don't want to write in a platform we're going to provide the Ukrainians with lethal weapons. We can't do that because Trump loves the Russians. Well, now it turns out, as you can see here, the investigation and the investigation not established that one campaign officials efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. How priceless is this? It goes on to explain how J.D. Gordon, a Trump campaign official, and this Diane Denman, this woman from, I believe, from Texas, how the thing was entirely between them. There was some confusion about what Trump's stance on Ukraine was, but it had nothing to do with Trump at all. Matter of fact, at one point it says that Gordon says he was on the phone with Trump, but there's no phone records of him even contacting Trump.

Again, he goes through this whole story about how we changed the RNC platform to be nice to Russia, insinuating it was somehow Trump. And then at the end, there's a little, oh, and by the way, there's no evidence that actually happened. So what are we investigating? I don't get it. Why even bother? I don't understand why that's even in the report.

Because they need a roadmap. They had to keep this investigation open. They had to know this was nonsense from the start. Such crap. This is such garbage. It's so... All right. I get frustrated talking about this.

Because reading it yesterday, the WikiLeaks thing was infuriating wiki leaks and the russians did they know they're russian no they didn't know they're russian all right today's show also brought to you by our buddies at genu cell you know i love genu cell is a popular product in my household my wife my mother-in-law really loved genu cells products do you wish that double chin would just disappear are those bags and puffiness getting a little worse every day? Here's an email we got from Robin S. from Lubbock, Texas. I put the jawline cream on my neck two or three days ago. It's the best my neck has looked in over 20 years.

Several people told me my face looks young. I am blown away. With GenuCell's natural actives and a pure antioxidant base with no parabens, chemical scents, and no pharmaceutical preservatives, it's the clean luxury your skin deserves every day. Treat your skin. I live down in Florida. We need this stuff. Your skin takes a beating in the sun. Order right now and the GenuCell jawline treatment is yours absolutely free just for ordering the classic GenuCell plant stem cell therapy for bags and puffiness. Text the word young to 77453

or go to GenuCell.com. That's GenuCell.com, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com. Genucel works for men and women. And for results in 12 hours or less, the Genucel immediate effects is also included free. Order now and get free three-day shipping. Text YOUNG to 77453 or go to Genucel.com. That's Genucel.com. Genucel.com. Check them out. All right. So you may be asking yourself now that I've analyzed a lot of this report and read through it. I tried to save you the effort of having at least to read through it in one weekend. What's going on here then? Folks, if you heard my show a couple weeks ago, I tried to explain the tactical savagery of what they're doing here to Donald Trump, and it's time we readdressed it. I'll readdress it quickly because I don't

like to repeat shows, but now that the report is out, it makes a world of sense what's going on here. All of the people involved in this collusion hoax, the Democrats, the FBI, Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey, John Brennan, the Obama administration, others understood from the start this case was a hoax. It was a hoax because it was only based in a dossier, a dossier that was fake, a dossier that was re-litigated old information from a 2007 Glenn Simpson Wall Street Journal article. It was basically a movie script where they just wrote in Donald Trump's name. They needed this dossier to cover their tracks for their old spying on Mike Flynn and others. They needed the dossier basically to reverse engineer a crime that never happened. Why would

you want to reverse engineer a crime that never happened? Why would you want to make pretend, fabricate a bank robbery that didn't happen because you want to investigate people for bank robbery. Well, there's no bank robbery. Exactly. Well, why would you want to investigate them? Because you're going to ruin their lives and you're going to ruin their presidency and you're going to create an endless set of press leaks

making that person look bad. That's why. Hey, Paula Bongino is being investigated for bank robbery. She is. Was there a bank robbery? No, but it doesn't matter. She's being investigated. That's the point.

They had to reverse engineer a crime. To reverse engineer a crime, they had to produce evidence of a crime. The problem is there was no crime and there was no evidence. So all they had was this dossier. Bob Mueller knows this. He knows this when he is appointed in May of 2017. How does he know this? He knows this because his chief investigator, the person he picks as his lieutenant in this, Andrew Weissman, has already been briefed on the dossier in 2016 and the political origins of it. He knows this is a Hillary Clinton document. Weissman has been briefed by Bruce Ohr. He knows the document's crap. And keep in mind, the dossier is the only evidence they have of a crime that never happened. So instead of making this case go away immediately, what Mueller should have done, what does he do? He should give the speech immediately to the American people. You've all been hoaxed. You've all been lied to. There is, in fact, no crime. This dossier is a garbage document. I've been charged with investigating Russian collusion in the election. It didn't happen. Thank you, folks. Have a nice day. That would have been the patriotic thing to do and the right thing to do. That's not what Mueller does. Mueller keeps the case open for 675 days, but how can he keep a case open for 675 days investigating a crime that

didn't happen when he knows immediately that crime didn't happen? The answer, create a new crime. And the new crime is obstruction. Put up the piece about the scope memo, if you don't mind, the part where we highlight the Carter Page stuff. This is fascinating. So I had told you in the beginning I was going to address the scope memo. Devin Nunes, who's been just a terrific, terrific stalwart supporter of getting to the bottom of this Republican Congress from California, was on Fox last night and brought up an interesting footnote on page 11. Here it is. Remember I told you about the scope memo? Bob Mueller's hired in May, in May of 2017, and he's given a memo on what he needs to do, investigate Russian collusion in the election. August 2nd, just months later, he's given a revised scope memo on new responsibilities. And look at this. On page 11 of the Mueller report, he gives up what's in the scope memo.

This is beautiful. Quote, had, had, not has been, had been authorized since his appointment to investigate allegations that three Trump campaign officials, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and George Papadopoulos, quote, committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. If you're listening to that right now, you're probably thinking, okay, where are you going with this? Read that thing carefully. Page 11, it's right at the bottom.

Mueller gets a revised scope memo on what he's supposed to do a few months later. Keep in mind now, Mueller knows the whole time this dossier is a hoax. He's not stupid. His lieutenant knows it's a hoax. He's already been briefed on the hoax, right? It says in this Mueller report that he'd been given instructions from the beginning to go and investigate collusion with Carter, Page, Papadopoulos, and Manafort. Ladies and gentlemen, where are those allegations of Russian collusion? They are only in the dossier. Why is Mueller writing that in a report? Think, think this through.

Mueller's putting that in his report that he had been given from the start the charge to investigate Carter Page. Remember, that's only in the dossier, the page stuff, these criminal allegations he's doing it to cover his own butt. He understands here that he was investigating a hoax the whole time. He just doesn't like Trump and he wants to keep the investigation going the

whole time, but he wants to cover his own butt. He wants to make sure everybody knows that his instructions from the start would investigate this dossier. He was told to do it. Ah, you missed that, didn't you? This is fascinating. Instead of wrapping it up, though, instead of going out in front of the public and saying,

hey, I've been charged with investigating the dossier, you maybe, if you're missing, Paula, give me a thumbs up or a thumbs down if they're missing the connection here. if you're missing, Paula, give me a thumbs up or a thumbs down if they're missing the connection here. What I'm telling you is that writing on that page 11 about how, hey, this is Mueller. I've been charged with investigating

criminal collusion with Carter Page. Ladies and gentlemen, where is that charge? It's only in one place, one place only. It's only in the dossier. He's winking and nodding at you that, hey, just so you know in case this comes down later that i was investigating a hoax document the whole time i was told to do this you get it he this is slick this report is slick muller hates trump he wants to provide enough

ammunition with these long-winded ridiculous stories about russian connections that in one sentence at the end he writes don't exist he wants to give that information to the democrats because he knows they'll play political games with it which they started already they'll all they're going to talk about the democrats is these russian connections which they're already doing despite the fact okay thank you uh despite the fact that none of them led to any criminal behavior at all none of them so he lays out this roadmap. He talks about it endlessly. He needed time to gather all this information.

But he would have lost out on that time if he would have come out and done the right thing immediately and said this was a hoax document. I don't know if I explained that well. I'm going to try this a different way. Mueller doesn't like Trump. He needs to provide the Democrats with political ammunition and the media to destroy the Trump presidency. The problem is the only ammunition he's been chartered to go with is the Carter Page stuff or the dossier he knows is false.

He has to fabricate another crime. So what does he do? He goes back in the revised scope memo and he works on an obstruction charge. what does he do? He goes back in the revised scope memo and he works on an obstruction charge. He creates an obstruction charge to keep the investigation open as long as possible, to gather all the material in this report, to give to the Democrats. This is really, really important stuff, but he needed the time to do it. So he uses the obstruction thing, but he doesn't want to leave himself open to criticism later. So he makes sure to put in a report that he's been given from the start instructions to investigate this dossier because he knows the

dossier in the end is going to be a hoax. So he wants everybody to know that although he was investigating obstruction the whole time, the reason he started wasn't my fault. I was told to investigate the dossier. I bet you missed that on page 11. I'll be candid with you folks. I missed it a little bit too. When Nunes hit it last night, I went back and read it again. And I'm like, yes, now I get it. This is, look, it's right there, up there on the screen.

I can't emphasize this line enough. It then confirmed that the special counsel Mueller had been authorized since his appointment to investigate allegations. These are only in the dossier folks that three campaign officials, unauthorized since his appointment to investigate allegations. These are only in the dossier folks that three campaign officials, page metaphor, Papadopoulos colluded with the Russians.

Basically that is only in the dossier. This is the biggest, but covering operation I have ever seen in my life. Now he could have again done the right thing and wrapped it up immediately and said folks this but he doesn't because he wants to protect the doj protect his buddy comey protect the reputation of the fbi and protect his buddy rosenstein a bit too who appointed him so he keeps this investigation open by inventing another crime obstruction of justice for a crime that never committed. It was never committed. It's really unbelievable what happened here. It's really phenomenal.

One other thing in the report, there was the, of course, the BuzzFeed story about the Trump Tower project. Remember BuzzFeed reported a while ago that, you know, anyone who takes BuzzFeed seriously, I really feel bad for you. BuzzFeed was the outlet that reported on the dossier first. It really did a disservice to the Trump team, reported a bunch of fake information. But remember the BuzzFeed scoop that Trump told Cohen a lie about the Trump Tower project in Moscow, the story we referenced before? That story is completely bunk now. BuzzFeed, whatever BuzzFeed tells you, BuzzFeed said they had sources on this. It's completely wrong. It's just made up. and a couple other things on this before i i get to uh i get to some some you know tying it all up for you ladies and gentlemen it's important we remember here

because andy mccabe was on a on another network uh was at msdnc or something last night the former deputy director of the fbi and the spin operation with the FBI has begun already. They are trying to move the goalpost here. Andy McCabe wants you to focus, and Comey will do this too, on why they started the investigation. They will lay out these standards saying, hey, if there's a suspicion of a national security threat, we can open up an investigation. Fine. Okay. I don't believe it was a legitimate suspicion. Andy McCabe knew from the start this whole dossier and all this stuff was garbage. I get that. But points stipulated. The criteria for opening up an investigation by the FBI, even when I was in the Secret Service, is very small. A lot of times, folks, you'll get a tip.

Can I give you a little behind the scenes? When you're a Secret Service agent, someone, we want to know how a federal case starts people will call your office sorry it's the most uncomfortable chair ever it's like a torture device and paula keeps telling me to lean back to make it even worse it's like my spine i need a chiropractic adjustment or something when you're in the secret service and you're sitting in an office and you get a call say it's a whatever a 7-eleven store owner on long island where i used to work for a while and they say hey we just got a counterfeit bill it's a hundred dollar bill come out here you get a a tip. If they have evidence there or videotape or they remember who it was, you'll probably open up a case. You'll get a case number. That's how it works. It's not complicated. You'll get a case number and the case number will

start with, counterfeit was seven, it was literally 7-11. That's why I think that was the number, 7-1-1. Those would be those cases. So I didn't even intend to tie those two things together. But that's how you'd get an open case. That doesn't mean that, you know, Joe Armacost committed the crime, passed the counter. It doesn't mean Paula did it. It just means you have an open case that a crime was committed. Now, I don't believe a crime was ever committed.

My suggestion here is that the FBI started a case because some people at the top got hosed and didn't like Donald Trump. So they were just apt to open it anyway. But even stipulating that point, what McCabe wants to do is get you focused on why they opened the investigation, but not why they swore to a FISA warrant. Now, again, I'm going to rely on Paula here because Joe is off today in an unusual Bongino show without producer Joe. I'm going to rely on a thumbs up or thumbs down from Paula. This texting works great, by the way.

If this doesn't make sense, you got to stop me. What McCabe is doing is he's trying to divert your attention from the swearing of warrants and the introduction of the court process and spying into it to opening the case. What do I mean? Okay, you open a case. There's nothing illegal about that. But ladies and gentlemen, there is something very illegal about walking into a court system

and swearing that information is in fact true, the dossier in a FISA court, when it is not and hasn't been verified and you're obligated to verify it. Be careful. You're going to see a lot of this in the coming days by Clapper, by Brennan, by Comey, by McCabe, by this cabal of idiots who ran this thing, where they're going to try to keep your attention on why they opened a case. Well, we were suspicious, knowing that there's very little ammunition for us to fight back on that. Your suspicions, it's a gray area.

They're going to say, I was suspicious. We're going to fire back with the truth. You were suspicious of what? At the ACA, it was Hillary's information. But they're going to say, okay, fair enough. But we were obligated to investigate it. Fine. All right.

Whatever. However wrong you are, point stipulated. But you did a horrible job. You weaponized your position. You abused your power. But there's very little for me to say. It's hard for me to question horrible job. You weaponized your position. You abused your power, but there's very little for me to say. It's hard for me to question their suspicion. You get it? That's why Andy McCabe keeps saying this. Well, this is why we opened up a case and I think we

did the right thing. No, no, Andy. No, no, no, no, no, no. You're not going to get away with that. That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about when you open that case, why you walked your butt into a FISA court with your agents and raised your right hand and swore that the information you used to open up the case was true when it wasn't. It was fake. It was debunked. You signed off on it.

You were obligated to sign off on verified information pursuant to the Woods procedure, and it wasn't verified. It was false. Don't fall for the trap. I have a note here about McCabe to say that. It's important. So that's another takeaway from this. Do not let them switch the argument from swearing information out in the FISA court, which is patently illegal. You cannot swear to false information. Do not let them switch it to why we opened up a case. Secondly, there's a point from the beginning of this case, Andy McCarthy,

brilliant writer, writes at New York Post and National Review, has made, and I'm going to wrap it with this because it's important. When you're a federal agent working a conspiracy case, remember the conspiracy case at some point requires knowledge of at least some of the players in the conspiracy. Not everyone has to know what everyone is doing, but to allege that you're knowingly colluding with the Russians, you have to know which Russians you're colluding with. If I'm colluding with a Russian guy to rob a bank and the whole story is that

I colluded with a Russian guy and I think he's Polish. I didn't knowingly collude with a Russian. I may have robbed a bank, but I didn't collude with a Russian. I didn't know he was Russian. The mens rea is going to matter. The criminal mind, what did I know? What was my intent? It's going to matter. The conspiracy required, not everybody has to know everything about a conspiracy. Keep that in mind. There's some low level players who may not know what the grand poobah of the operation is doing. That doesn't mean you're not guilty, but at some point to be a member of a conspiracy. Keep that in mind. There's some low-level players who may not know what the grand poobah of the operation is doing. That doesn't mean

you're not guilty. But at some point, to be a member of a conspiracy, you're going to have to have some knowledge of how the conspiracy works and some of the players. I want you to keep this

at the front of your mind while reading the report. He lays out all these big connections to the Russians and all this other stuff. He never lays out at any point Mueller at the report. And McCarthy brings this up. He brought this up a year ago. No one

has ever pleaded guilty. And Mueller never lays out in the report what the conspiracy actually was. Because there was none. Mueller debunks the conspiracy entirely because he can't, but goes again, beats the drum the entire time to explain a conspiracy that never happened. He explains all these suspicious Russian connections and explains later that they were not, they were innocent. Why, why are you writing this then? I don't understand. Your report was to investigate and report on Russian collusion, not contacts with Russian people. It's not illegal. He does nothing to explain Hillary Clinton's Russian contacts. Nothing.

And the use of her Russian sources for Christopher Steele, he explains none of that. Zero. No one in this case has ever pled to the conspiracy and no one has ever explained what the conspiracy is besides the lunatic media and the Democrats. What's the conspiracy for them? Russians hacked the email, gave them to WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks gave them to the Trump team. That didn't happen. WikiLeaks took the emails, didn't know these people were Russian. WikiLeaks did not, in fact, secretly back channel this information to the Trump team in an effort to harm the Hillary

Clinton campaign. The guy, the WikiLeaks email, it's funny. In the Mueller report, the WikiLeaks take shots at the Republicans do. Folks, this whole thing is garbage. There is no conspiracy. No one has ever pled guilty to it because it doesn't exist. It did not happen. It is as simple as that. All right. Here's a great way to end the show. So Kellyanne Conway, who's quite a bulldog, when she wants to lay a smack down, she will. She was asked yesterday about President Trump issuing a rebuttal to this report. And this is how I want to end the show. So before I end, by the way,

thank you for a great week. Yesterday's show did great. Please listen to today's show and spread it around. I think those are the six or seven solid takeaways from the show today that you really need. So please share the show from the Mueller report. Subscribe to us at youtube.com slash Bongino. And of course, on iTunes, SoundCloud and iHeartRadio, really appreciate it. But this is Kellyanne Conway answering a question about this. Trump needs

to issue a rebuttal to the Mueller report. I love this answer. He doesn't need a point by point rebuttal. You know, his greatest rebuttal will be his greatest rebuttal will be he's in office. He's going to remain in office and he'll get reelected because the Democrats have nothing. Get out there in 2020 and vote. That's your rebuttal. All right, folks, thanks again for a great week. I really appreciate it. We'll be back to our normal studio on Monday, but I didn't want to miss the show is obviously on Thursday and Friday. No vacations. Happy Easter. Praise the Lord. 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 seven at D Bongino.