EpochTV - The Epoch Times
Live Chat

Kash Patel: FBI's Washington Headquarters Should Be Disbanded, Agents Sent Back to the Field

Views 49.7K
“What were they investigating [Igor Danchenko] for circa 2009, 2010? ... Basically trying to buy classified information and sell it to a foreign government. … And they closed the investigation because they lose him, but it turns out, he was in America the whole time.”
In this episode of Kash’s Corner, we discuss revelations that Igor Danchenko was a paid FBI confidential human source and was previously being investigated by the FBI for allegedly trying to buy and sell classified information.
The investigation was closed in 2010 “after the FBI incorrectly believed that the defendant had left the country,” according to a recent filing by special counsel John Durham.
We also discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent threats to use nuclear force, the appointment of a special master in the Trump Mar-a-Lago case, the New York attorney general filing a civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and three of his children, and recent FBI whistleblower allegations detailed in separate letters to the FBI from Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Jim Jordan.
The letters allege the FBI has become politicized and the FBI’s Washington Field Office is artificially inflating the threat of violent extremism domestically.
The FBI’s Washington headquarters should be disbanded and agents sent back to the field, Kash Patel argues.
* Click the "Save" button below the video to access it later on "My List".
Kash Patel:
Hey, everybody, and welcome back to Kash's Corner. Jan, what are we going to talk about today?
Jan Jekielek:
Well, we're going to talk about the nuclear threat from Vladimir Putin. I think we need to cover that. And we've got whistleblower information. We've got a letter from Senator Grassley and Congressman Jordan from the judiciary committees of each the House and the Senate.
We've also got this special, not just a little bit about the special master and the declassification issue. We definitely need to cover that. And finally, Danchenko filing keeps on giving, so... But what's that on your lap?
Mr. Patel:
Well, I'm glad you mentioned it. Thanks very much. This week, Jan, we are debuting my new children's book, “The Plot Against the King: Part 2:2000 Mules.” I'm sure the audience is familiar with “Plot Against the King” one, which was Russiagate for kids and adults. And it did so well. We did a sequel.
So, we'll tell you a lot more information about Plot Against the King two, that I partnered with Dinesh D'Souza. But that'll come at the end of the episode, but thanks for mentioning that, Jan.
And before we move on, I'd like to thank one person in particular. Lee Smith, my dear friend, your dear friend, journalist, and host of the great show, “Over The Target” on Epoch Times and Epoch TV. Thanks, Lee, for covering it. You're one of the best journalists in the country. I love your show. And thank you, and thank you, Jan, for allowing me to take a week off. And now, we're back.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, let's talk about some... I think for everybody, it has to be disturbing news, which is Russia. Vladimir Putin is mobilizing 300,000 reservists, reportedly, and basically saying that the nuclear option is on the table if he feels threatened.
Mr. Patel:
That should just be one of the worst case scenarios anyone can ever imagine. Look, we followed this closely on the show up to Putin's invasion, and even I thought he didn't have the gall to go in and do it.
But what it showed me was the rise of Vladimir Putin's power on the world stage and how little he cares about an American response to retaliation or from a joint Western Alliance—response retaliation. And what we've seen over the last, I don't know, six to eight months is, Putin hanging out in Ukraine, causing death, murdering kids, murdering adults, murdering women in this ugly thing we call war, which is constant there now. And he comes in yesterday, I think, or the day before and says, "Nuclear options are on the table." That is a striking escalation. It is the ultimate escalation. There's nothing you can do past that.
And so, I think it's a failure of American diplomacy and geopolitical navigating overseas that is partly responsible for Putin coming to the stage and making such a definitive statement that would literally cause the end of, if not the entire country, a part of it, and massive swaths of a population, because that's what a nuclear weapon is for. That's why it's called the end of day's weapon.
And so, I really hope he's just conjecturing. But as a national security official, a former one, hope is not a strategy. What is this administration? What is the Biden administration's policy to take this on and combat it, and make sure that it never happens? What are our allies in Germany, in the UK, and France? What are they doing to combat it?
And tragically, you've seen other mishaps on the world stage. Most recently, you heard from President Biden on a separate, but sort of related issue, he was over in the UK paying his respects to the queen, and rightfully so, and he was asked about Taiwan. And he said, "What if China invades Taiwan?" And President Biden, I'm paraphrasing here, basically said; We're going in. We, America, are going in.
[Sound bite]:
US forces, US men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion
Mr. Patel:
And the world was like, "Wait a second. Did you just change American policy from the last 50 years vis-a-vis China and Taiwan? Because that's never been our policy." And then, the White House, of course, rolled it back and made ambiguous statements saying, "That's not what he meant." But you're the commander in chief. When President Trump made these types of statements, definitively, he knew what he was saying and he didn't have to have the White House clear it up.
But you also have to remember there's Kim Jong-un in North Korea who has nuclear weapons, supposedly, and he's been firing rockets off for the last 16 months into the sea of Japan on his test flights.
None of this has decreased. It has all been a constant escalation, threatening not just American security, but civilian lives in China, in the Ukraine, in Russia, in North and South Korea, in Japan, and so many other places. And the response has been muted, at best, by the Biden administration.
So, I don't know where it's going to go. I really don't. It cannot go to nuclear war. But we are just not in a position of strength anymore.
Mr. Jekielek:
There's a number of voices out there that are basically saying, "Well, actually, it was kind of Western aggression that precipitated this. Just give Putin what he wants. He might just be crazy enough to launch a nuke, and let's just get peace at any cost."
Mr. Patel:
Well, it's not ours to give, right? A piece of it is the whole NATO Alliance growth since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union. Back then, quick history, we, the Western alliances had promised the Soviet Union that fell, that there would be no infringement, no new additions of NATO countries along the, what was then known as the Iron Curtain.
Fast forward, 40 some years later, they have added the NATO Alliance on that border, on that Iron Curtain, has added, I believe and you can check me, half a dozen countries into the NATO Alliance. So, Putin's position, I don't agree with it, but Putin's position is, "Okay. You guys have spent 40 years violating an agreement, adding to NATO along our Russian border or in the area. And you're continuing to do so with talks of now adding Sweden and other countries into NATO."
And from their perspective, they're like, "You continue to break the agreements we had, an international front to end a conflict 30, 40, some years ago." So, he now has justification in his mind to create a new conflict and escalate it so much so that we're now talking about nuclear weapons. And that is a direct result of, I believe, the politicization of our American national security apparatus, which is severely weakened during President Biden's regime because look, you don't have to be a Trump fan to know it, but these types of things did not happen on the national security front during President Trump's presidency, whether it be Xi Jinping in China, Putin in Russia, or Kim Jong-un in North Korea.
Mr. Jekielek:
Okay. Let me see if I understand you correctly. This is something that Ukraine has to decide, but of course, there's this whole Western coalition, which is that Ukraine wouldn't have a defense without its support, right?
Mr. Patel:
Right. And that's why that whole NATO discussion comes back into the fold. It's not America singularly to defeat this escalation by Vladimir Putin. It's not like we, America, can just hand him something and he'll say, "Okay. We're good. We'll go back." It's going to take a collaboration of the Western powers and  Ukraine, because that's where the war is. And if that's the road they go down, it's going to take some significant land concessions in the Ukraine that I just... From my reading of what's been going on, I don't see the Ukrainian people willing to give up.
So, I don't think that it's going to be resolved in that diplomatic fashion. Because of what I said earlier too, we, America, don't have the global stance we used to have two, three years ago. The wasta, if you will, to come in there and say, "This is how we are going to bring the western alliance together. This is how we're going to take on Putin. This is how we're going to shut them down. And this is how, most importantly, we're going to get him off the nuclear weapons discussions."
Mr. Jekielek:
Now, you didn't think Putin was going to go in... I don't think Putin's going to use nuclear weapons. I don't know what you think, but is this just bluster? Is this just a way to gain leverage? Because obviously, it seems like a pretty strong way to try to do that. What is it?
Mr. Patel:
Yes. I think he is playing his chess pieces better than the rest of the world right now, in that region, because A, he doesn't care about Russian casualties or Russian soldier casualties. It's not something that he's concerned with. He cares about his survival and as the head of the Russian state.
And so, a lot of people back in Russia, agree with him. A lot of people don't, but a lot of people do. I don't know that I have a definitive response today on whether or not he'll use nuclear weapons. As I said earlier, I hope not, but that's not a good strategy. And having been wrong on the Ukraine invasion leads me to recalculate my answer to that question.
Six, eight months ago, I would've said, "No, not possible at all." Now, unfortunately, I have to think about that heavily, and I don't have an exact answer. I, unfortunately, believe that Putin is serious about that threat, which is in and of itself, a massive escalation on the global front and global security.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, and deeply, deeply troubling. We'll have to be following this up as the show continues and as this whole situation continues over there.
Well, let's completely switch gears here and go back to domestic realities. The obvious thing to comment on, we started talking about last week, the special master appointment.
Mr. Patel:
Mr. Jekielek:
Classification issues. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Patel:
I don't think this is going to take too much time to roll through because there's not too many developments. A, special master was appointed. And B, he had Judge Dearie, I believe, in New York, convene the lawyers for both sides for the first time.
And as a result of that, the public learned a couple of things. One, it looks like it's going to take until around November 30th for the special master to just get through reviewing the documents. And which is what we said on an earlier episodes. I say, "This is a process that's going to take months." And now, that's over two months away just for the review. He, also, Judge Dearie made some tests, some statements during the public hearing that he just held. And I think the one thing of note here is that, he said, I, Judge Dearie, at this time, don't feel the need to have to review classified information just yet.
Prudentially speaking, that's the right course of action. But when you look at what we've talked about in terms of corruption at the FBI and DOJ, I would've hoped he would look at everything right away. Now, he hasn't said he won't, he's just taking it in a measured approach, and I think maybe that's why so many people respect him.
Now, we never talked about Judge Dearie in the selection of him as special master in and of itself. I probably would've gone a different way. Judge Dearie is one of the FISA court judges that signed a surveillance warrant against President Trump, which turned out to be an unlawful surveillance based on the investigation I led with Devin Nunes at the House Intelligence Committee.
So, this can go one of two ways. I've heard a lot of people on TV say, "Great selection," because he has a chance to fix his wrongs. Well, maybe. A federal court judge doesn't like being told he got something wrong, but of course, a federal court judge also doesn't like being lied to. So, hopefully, he has that information in hand when he's making these decisions, and the same FBI and DOJ actors are presenting him with their definitive positions and that everything was done above board when he has been the victim, if you want to put it that way, of an FBI and DOJ corruption, which led to an unlawful surveillance of a president or presidential candidate.
And I remind our audience, as a result of our investigation, two of those first of four search warrants were completely revoked by the Department of Justice. Now, Devin Nunes and I did send, on behalf of the House Intel Committee, way back when we found these errors, an extensive memo to the FISA court detailing our findings.
And at the time, these FISA court judges wouldn't even respond to us, or just said, "Go talk to DOJ." And so, I'm disheartened that these judges, back then, wouldn't listen to our fact-based findings. And now, you have one of these judges who is in charge as special master.
I don't know if I would've gone that way, Jan, but he seems to be taking a methodical and prudential approach based on his public statements from this week's hearing.
Mr. Jekielek:
So, something else that we'll keep following, no doubt, as it continues, it seems it'll be some months of process here. On a related note, there is this new prosecution of the Trump family by the New York attorney general. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Patel:
I have a lot. My problem with a state attorney general or any law enforcement officer, and as the attorney general, you're the number one law enforcement officer of that state. At the state level Letitia James campaigned on this for four years. She said President Trump was an illegitimate president before she was ever in office. She ran on that. She further went on to say and promised the electorate that she would sue and bring charges against Donald Trump, having never investigated him.
Talk about a conclusion or putting the cart before the horse. She was politicizing law enforcement by saying, I'm going to get you. And now, the rest of the family, but I haven't looked at anything. That, to me, as a former federal prosecutor and a public defender is shocking. And maybe 10 years ago, I would've expected the left to come out and say, "How can you make such a statement when you haven't looked at any of the evidence?"
And now, fast forward, what she's done is say, "Okay. I'm filing a civil suit." We all know the gymnastics and the amount of time and energy she expensed trying to bring criminal charges, but couldn't. And just to put a caveat on that, for our audience, generally, when your primary choice as an attorney general or a prosecutor is you bring criminal charges, if you can prove there was criminal conduct. Seems to me, she failed on that front because the evidence didn't support it. So, what's your secondary option? Civil suit. And what does that mean? Money.
And so, now, she's saying, "People in Trump World were corrupt. And you, Trump World, have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars." I don't think that case is getting settled anytime soon. I think President Trump will probably fight it, but I think it is another example of the politicization of our law enforcement. It's another version to me of, how are we going to get Trump now? And this seems to be New York's state attorney general's way of doing that.
Mr. Jekielek:
Before we jump to talking about these whistleblower allegations from the judiciary committees, I just want to briefly talk about the Danchenko case. This is what we, obviously, talked with Lee about last week.
There's this very interesting motion about the materiality of, basically, this Danchenko being investigated in a counter intelligence investigation some 10 years prior. What relevance does this have? That's the question. Why are we litigating that?
Mr. Patel:
The motions in which we'll put up for our audience to see in links to see it are filed by John Durham and Danchenko's defense counsels. And as we've discussed on earlier episodes, probably some months ago, these are pretrial motions, John Durham saying, "I've got evidence I want to use. We call it "prior bad acts information or evidence of the defendant."
The prosecution is saying, "Did other things wrong in his past?" And we want to introduce that in our case in chief, to the jury. The rules of evidence don't allow you to just stand up in court on day one and say, "They did X, Y, and Z five years ago." You have to follow the rules of evidence, file these pleadings. So, that's the mechanics of it.
Mr. Jekielek:
And you have to prove that it makes sense that it's relevant, basically.
Mr. Patel:
Well, yes, you're right. You have to show what the rules of evidence required. In this case, they require materiality, as you said. And of course, it always has to be relevant and it has to be more probative than prejudicial, as we say. That means that it provides more evidence that the jury can use to make a determination rather than just inflame them.
And so, look, for me, this is one of the most shocking findings that John Durham has put out. And you're talking about the guy that did the Russiagate investigation with Devin Nunes, that figured out Christopher Steele was a paid asset of the DNC in the Hillary Clinton campaign. But not only that, he got paid by the FBI as a paid informant to produce false information, to hijack a law enforcement agency, and lie to a federal court, to unlawfully surveil a presidential candidate, as if that weren't bad enough.
And I've said this before, Danchenko is like the new version of Christopher Steele. But what we didn't know, what is actually breaking, exploding news is, Danchenko is a paid, or was, a paid informant for this FBI. Danchenko's history is, he was hired by Fiona Hill at Brookings Institute to be a research assistant. Fiona Hill, who knows Christopher Steele and introduced him to the whole parade of characters, including Bruce Ohr and folks at DOJ, hired Danchenko. Christopher Steele source to be a research assistant. Then, shortly after that, the FBI comes in and says, "Hey..." Not to the public. "We are investigating Danchenko." What were they investigating him for around circa 2009, 10? Do you know, Jan? It's crazy.
Basically, trying to buy classified information and sell it to foreign government. This guy, that's now charged by John Durham, some 10 plus years later, who is Fiona Hill's research assistant. And I believe it's no coincidence if Fiona Hill knows both Danchenko and Christopher Steele, and the likes of Charles Dolan, and Fusion GPS. I've always called on their need for her to be investigated by both Congress and the DOJ, for her involvement in the biggest government criminal conspiracy in U.S. history.
Danchenko, it was some point determined by the FBI after two years of investigating, "we're not going to bring a charge." So, what do they do? After Christopher Steele gets terminated by the FBI as a source during the Russiagate investigation. Because what did Christopher Steele do? He lied to the FBI and he went out and talked to the media. You can't do that if you're a source. They fired him, as if it wasn't enough corrupt activity to bring in Bruce Ohr, a high level DOJ prosecutor to be the Steele cutout, so that the FBI could continue to get the information that Steele was producing even though they fired him.
They hired Danchenko. Danchenko was Christopher Steele's source. Now, we know that. We didn't know that at the time of the Steele dossier. So, while at the same time they're using a DOJ prosecutor cutout, the FBI comes in, fires one source, and hires his source to funnel false information.
Now, this guy's on the government payroll for the three, four years we were looking at Russiagate, and no one told us about this stuff. We sent congressional subpoenas out. We asked not just for Steele's involvement in this, but any and all informants. And we weren't told about this. And thankfully, John Durham has figured this out. But now, you have even less confidence in our FBI because Christopher Wray was supposed to expose this corruption. He should have said in day one, four years ago, after Steele got fired, "Well, we also had this guy, we're not going to hire him, and we should have prosecuted him years ago."
And so, thankfully, John Durham is taking the right approach, I think, methodically, to lay that out for the public to see as we've done in these hearings. Excuse me, in these pleadings. But to answer your question, what he, John Durham wants to do ultimately is say, "Danchenko, yes, he was a paid informant who was fired by the FBI also. But more importantly, he wants to tell the jury that Danchenko did things that were borderline criminal in terms of his actions, right after he left Brookings Institute, or maybe while he was there, about trying to acquire classified information and sell it, which is illegal."
So, when you're talking about the main sources that stood up, the biggest criminal conspiracy in U.S. history and the DOJ and FBI were in on it with a political ally in the DNC. It's going to be very hard for the American public to regain any trust in the DOJ and FBI. And I'm the guy that's still out there saying, "We need one. We need a DOJ. We need an FBI." And I get a lot of flack for that, because people want to completely do away with it. And I said, "No, we have to completely fix it."
Maybe this is step one. Maybe the world will finally pay attention, but we're just going to have to wait and see. I think that trial begins in two or three weeks.
Mr. Jekielek:
The thing that just sort of jumps to my mind, if I recall correctly, that investigation on Danchenko was closed because they thought he had left the country, but he actually hadn't. They kind of erroneously, somehow, made that determination. Do you recall this?
Mr. Patel:
Now that you mention it, it's stunning that the FBI couldn't figure that out, if that's the case. I do recall reading this now. But they are investigating him for a very severe counterintelligence crime, and they close the investigation because they lose him. But it turns out, he was in America the whole time. The whole time, he was providing Christopher Steele the information for his bogus dossier.
This guy, Danchenko, was still in the country. And then, they decided to pay him. But it's not like... Here's the thing that it's also bothersome. It's not like when they found him, they said, "Okay. We're going to pick up our investigation again." They said, "No, we're going to pay you. We're going to do the exact opposite. We need you so bad to make up more information and fake dirt, so we can continue to politicize the FBI and DOJ, that we're going to give you money from American taxpayers." And what they should have done is said, "we're going to continue our investigation into you and bring prosecutorial charges."
Mr. Jekielek:
One of the things we discussed with Lee was that, once someone does become a confidential human source, they're basically shielded in all sorts of ways, perhaps, from congressional subpoenas of the sorts that you attempted to put out.
Some people have suggested, and we talked about this on the last show that, that's actually part of the idea behind making someone a confidential human source. If they have things that you want to hide, you can kind of use that designation.
Mr. Patel:
Yes. Absolutely. And we prove that, that's what they did with Steele during Russiagate. And it seems to be, that's what... It's now proven. That's exactly what they did with Danchenko in Russiagate and beyond. And because now, the FBI can come into a congressional subpoena, especially when the majority flips, which they know is happening, come November. Oh, no, this is related to sources and methods, and they'll band you that infamous line that says, "You are jeopardizing national security by asking for this information, people are going to die."
And they tried that with us. And as a national security prosecutor , I said, "No, there's a way to do this correctly and lawfully and ethically, so show us the documentation, and then we will release what's appropriate." And we did that. No one died. No relationship was ruined. No source was jeopardized. But they will say that to cover up their corruption. And there's a specific federal court case that speaks to that. The FBI and DOJ are not permitted to cover up or mask information to hide their own corruption, and that's exactly what I believe they're doing here and John Durham caught him.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, this is the perfect moment to talk about the FBI whistleblower, I suppose, right?
No. And there's these two letters that have come out one from Senate judiciary, one from House judiciary. In the case of the Grassley letter to the FBI director, he had this question that he asked, and the question was, there was a committee of field agents that basically said, "It looks to me like there's politicization happening in investigations." And somehow, this never appeared in the report, it was supposed to appear in. Grassley's asking about it, and I guess he's asking about it again.
Mr. Patel:
Yes. So, what happens is, after a director like Chris Wray testifies, they do QFR, questions for the records, follow ups, right? And the senator or congressman or woman sends them in officially on letterhead and says, "Answer these follow up questions, which you, Chris Wray agreed to answer."
And what Grassley's saying is, six, some weeks later, and there has been no response from the FBI. Not surprising. What we have learned is, there's not just one whistleblower, it's been scores of whistleblowers who have come forward to make these claims, to make these allegations. And to me, they seem very credible. And what it shows is that the FBI has been completely politicized. And what Senator Grassley is saying, "I want to get to the bottom of this. Are you telling me the FBI had a group that was created to monitor field level agents' activity and sort of grab the pulse of what was going on?"
And instead of doing that, you used it as a political cajole to stomp out certain investigations or allow others to proceed. That's what Senator Grassley's investigating. It's pretty damning information to come from not one, but multiple FBI whistleblowers. And what's disturbing is that, they're being retaliated against, but there's a specific whistleblower protection act, a statute on the books for federal law that says, "No agency can retaliate in any way, shape or form against any whistleblower that comes forward to expose fraud, waste, and abuse or criminality."
And so, this one, we're going to stay on, for sure, because if that's the case, boy, Chris Wray's going to have a really difficult winter come the change of gavels.
Mr. Jekielek:
And so, let's just look at this other letter that came from Jim Jordan. Basically, the whistleblower allegations, again, if I've got this right, are that there are investigations that are, ostensibly, being run out of various field offices. But actually, the Washington field offices holding the reigns, people are saying, "I'm listed as running this investigation. But actually, these people from the Washington field office are running it." That seems like a big deal.
Mr. Patel:
That's a big deal. And we'll get to that in a second. What the letter also says, which we'll put out for our audience is they, the FBI are using this system you just described to pad falsely the statistics for domestic violent extremism and tie it to January 6th.
Now, you have multiple FBI agents who have come to Congressman Jim Jordan's office and said, "Unrelated to what we were talking about with Senator Grassley and his whistleblowers." Congressman Jordan has his own set that are saying, "I, as the special agent who was supposed to be assigned to case X, found out that my name had been taken from case X and put on case Y, submitted to the Washington DC field office, removed the case from the field level agents without their knowledge, and used to say there is more domestic, violent extremism, especially as it relates to the activities of January 6th."
Talk about cooking the books for the FBI. It is a shocking development from whistleblowers.
Mr. Jekielek:
And just to be clear, you're basically saying, these agents are saying that they would never have classified it this way, but it's being classified this way, ostensibly, through their mouths or through their-
Mr. Patel:
Yes. Since we talked about classified information, I would use a different term here. I don't believe this information is classified, I think it's just being segregated. This information is being taken from certain field agents, hijacked almost, and plopped down to the Washington behemoth.
And what they're saying is, politics took those investigations and falsely labeled them domestic violence extremism, so that the FBI could come out and Christopher Wray could go and testify before Congress and say, "Domestic violence extremism is up, especially when it relates to January 6th, based upon our findings." What these whistleblowers are saying is, "That's totally false."
And what's even more disturbing, as if that weren't enough. In Jim Jordan's letter, he writes that these whistleblowers have now come forward and said, "The way this structure's been set up, because you have taken the authority from the field level agents and improperly placed it in the Washington behemoth, the field level agents and the FBI mothership are no longer focusing on crimes that they should be."
And one, in particular, that he labels, child sex offenses. Jim Jordan actually labels that the FBI pursuant to the whistleblowers that he's talking to, are no longer focusing as a primary criminal investigation, child sex offenses, because this behemoth, this machine that they've created to manufacture false information for disinformation campaign purposes, that's being perpetuated by Chris Wray, the head of the FBI, is forgetting to do the field level work. And that's what the agents are saying. I want to get back to, as we always used to say, cops and robbers. Let us go back and prosecute those who commit crimes of violence, crimes against children, murders, bank robberies, frauds, and things like that. But because all of the agents' information is wrongfully being taken, and the agents are being removed from these cases, and then Washington, just like they did in Hillary Clinton's email investigation, just like they did in the Hunter Biden’s laptop case, just like they did in Russiagate.
And so, many others have hijacked this information and are using it for a false narrative. And that is why I've always called for the disbanding of the Washington headquarter behemoth, that is the FBI. I'm not saying it's annihilation, I'm saying, those agents need to go back into the field. And to me, this is the best level of proof I've ever seen. When you have field agents coming forward by the dozens, saying the same exact thing that, "We want to do the work we signed up for. And our leadership in Washington DC is politicizing it and giving the American people a false narrative."
And if that's true, sounds like it is, Chris Wray has a lot of answering to do under oath about why he allowed this to occur on his watch, and why he's not answering the questions of Senator Grassley and Congressman Jordan. Now, that will likely switch once the gavel switches. But right now, he knows he can ignore them. And as we've seen from the reporting, it has been a deafening silence from Senator Grassley's request. For more information. Of course, Mr. Jordan's request just came in more recently, but I don't believe the FBI will be responding to that either.
Mr. Jekielek:
Kash, it's time for our shoutout.
Mr. Patel:
It is, Jan. But if you'll indulge me before we get to this week's shoutout, I want to talk a little bit more about my book, my new book, “The Plot Against the King: 2000 Mules,” in collaboration with Dinesh D'Souza and his documentary, 2000 Mules, we have brought to you the sequel to The Plot Against the King, which talks about Russiagate. And in this book, Plot Against the King: 2000 Mules, Dinesh and I talked to the world about election integrity.
And we want to stress that it's not a book about politics and saying you should be a conservative or Republican or Democrat or liberal, it's our mission to educate our children to do what's right, truth, and the mission comes first. And we want everyone, not just kids, but adults across the country to get it.
So, if you want to support us, go to plotagainsttheking.com, you can pick up one copy, two copies, both books today, even signing them. plotagainsttheking.com. And so, this week, special shoutout, goes to our friend Lee Smith, as we talked about at the beginning of the show.
And talk about things coming full circle. Lee Smith is the guru of Russiagate and “The Plot Against the President,” which if you haven't read that book, you must read it ASAP. And he was my inspiration for my books, my series called, The Plot Against the King.
So, Lee, thanks so much to you. Our audience, thank you so much for the live chats every Friday night, and for posting on our board. Please continue to do that. And we'll see you next week on Kash's Corner.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Follow EpochTV on social media: