In the days leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, President Donald Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard, but official government documents show Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Washington mayor Muriel Bowser, and the D.C. Capitol Police each declined the offer.
“The fact that President Trump authorized security for the Capitol and he ordered the transition of government—he could legally and factually not have been orchestrating a coup to conduct an insurrection,” says Kash Patel.
Why hasn’t the FBI turned over all documentation related to January 6? Were there undercover government agents in the crowd that day? And why was Trump supporter Rosanne Boyland, who died that day, repeatedly beaten by a Capitol Police officer even while she was unconscious?
* Click the "Save" button below the video to access it later on "My List".
Kash Patel:
Hey everybody. We're back. Welcome back to Kash's Corner as we kick off season five. Can you believe it, Jan?
Jan Jekielek:
It's really hard to believe and there's so much to talk about. You miss a few weeks and then you have this huge amount of material to work through. I mean, just on January 6th, as we broadcast this episode, we have launched our new January 6th documentary at the Epoch Times, which of course features someone that's on this show right now among others. I really want to talk about that. And we've also got some questions like Steve Bannon is on trial, that's also connected to January 6th. Mark Milley, General Mark Milley had a testimony in Jan 6th. I know you want talk about that. So I think it's going to be a lot of Jan 6th today.
Mr. Patel:
So it's going to be fun. Maybe we'll give our viewers a few extra minutes on this episode since we've been away. But we also, we did not forget about Devin Nunes. I have started a program, a campaign on Truth Social, Donde Devin. We found him, he's in England launching Truth Social, but we are going to get to that interview exclusively on Kash's Corner in a few weeks. So we've got a lot coming up this season. We're going to have a blast, but no better place to start than Jan 6th.
Mr. Jekielek:
Again, the insurrection narrative is something that we keep hearing again and again and again in the legacy media. Obviously very bad things happened on January 6th. The question is, is it an insurrection? Why don't you tell me?
Mr. Patel:
So my view is the one that the law demands, it's pretty simple. This is not an insurrection. An insurrection happens when someone i.e. a president of the United States basically hijacks the military or piece of the military to take over the government. Now, how would that have been possible when President Donald Trump, we have extensively recovered on this show, in the days before January 6th authorized up to 20,000 National Guards, men and women, as the law requires.
We at the DoD took that authorization and request to Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police. They said no. We took it to Muriel Bowser and she said no. It's literally impossible for the president of the United States to be charged with insurrection when he authorized the security of the United States Capitol on the day it was supposed to collect and garner the vote count to install the next president of the United States.
On top of that, in November-ish of 2020, President Trump's GSA, government service agency, who is responsible for transitioning governments signed off on a presidential authorization that said, transfer the power from Trump administration to Biden administration. That can't happen unless president Trump said to do that. And then we at the Department of Defense, I can speak personally, were ordered by the White House to transition to the Biden administration. And we did the largest transition in Department of Defense history in terms of access to documents and personnel all during COVID. And I wrote an article on that that I published when I was chief of staff.
But those two things taken even alone disprove this insurrection narrative. When you combine them, the fact that President Trump authorized security for the Capitol, and he ordered the transition of government, he could legally and factually not have been orchestrating a coup to conduct an insurrection. And that's one of the most important messages that I have literally never talked about and it's not being talked about. Not by the Unselect Committee, not by the media, not by really anybody. So I'm really glad we're able to start our season in Kash's Corner with the most consequential information regarding January 6th, because their mandate, the committee's mandate, has been, prove Donald Trump committed an insurrection. If they cared about the facts, which they don't, they would know he did not.
Mr. Jekielek:
I do want to touch on this a little bit because it doesn't have to be the military. I think there has to be a credible threat that the government can be usurped. The legitimate government usurped. Isn't that what insurrection really means? And the argument is that the crowd, the mob, everybody there at the Capitol on that day, that they were doing that.
Mr. Patel:
Well, conceivably yes. You could go out and hire a mercenary force akin to a military to do that. And the argument that the crowd outside the Capitol of civilians was going to usurp the United States government when the sitting commander in chief had taken action to counterman that to say, we are transitioning, [and] to say, I am providing security. If you refuse it, that's on you, but I'm doing these two things, I think defeats the narrative.
And it's not like President Trump and all these investigations that have borne out since on January 6th, the memorandums or emails, or texts have come out saying President Trump was hiring a mercenary group to come in and overthrow Congress. That's absurd. It's absurd on its face and it's absurd based on the facts that have been borne out. So look, that narrative will continue because so many in the media want that to be true, just like they wanted Russiagate to be true, just like they wanted the Ukraine impeachment fiasco to be true. Just like so many other completely false narratives, Bountygate in Afghanistan, we can go on, that were completely disproven by the facts. And I think we'll get there on this one too. It's just going to take till after the November election.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, and I just want to touch on this too. After the November election, if the House changes hands, so to speak, that mandate will be gone of this January 6th committee, right?
Mr. Patel:
Yes. So this is I think been, if there's any good to come out of all the tumultuous times of the past, it's that it's been a very good civics awakening for most of America who doesn't pay attention and nor necessarily should [know] how the inner workings of government are. But I think a lot of Americans have learned when you don't have the majority in Congress, and by we I'm saying me on behalf of the Republicans or if you're a Democrat, if the Democrats have it, they control the gavels. They control the direction of the committees. They control the investigations, they control who to subpoena. They control who to engage with at DOJ, FBI, and CIA, or whether not to subpoena the attorney general and the director of the FBI, and things like that. So you've seen, America and the world have seen what the Democrats have done on the January 6th committee.
The Republican's turn is coming soon. And when that happens, it'll be interesting to see what investigations they line up. Are they going to go in and look at a Hunter Biden situation? Are they going to go in, and as we have always said on this show, a security, an actual security analysis of what happened up to and including on January 6th, what was law enforcement doing? What was the Capitol Police doing? What was our Intel community doing? What did the DoD actually do? If they look at those things, then we can have an investigation that might lead to results or recommendations that make sure something like that never happens again.
Mr. Jekielek:
Do you think it's even possible to have an apolitical investigation in the current climate?
Mr. Patel:
I don't think it's possible to have an apolitical investigation, but I do think it's possible to go and get the documents that matter. And you're talking to the guy that ran the Russiagate investigation during a Republican administration, when Republicans were in charge of Congress. And we had to fight our tails off just to get those documents. But once we released them, once we released things like the Nunes memo, the Bruce Ohr 302s, the FISA warrants and the underlying documentation, everybody saw for themselves what we had been saying. Because we knew what they said, that the entire thing was perpetrated on the line paid for by a political party to hijack law enforcement and use it against a political candidate.
And it saddens me to say that I'm seeing some shocking similarities in how the January 6th investigation is unfolding. Ray Epps is the front and center of this. But it's disturbing to me that a United States Senator, Ted Cruz, can ask the head of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, Jill Sandborn, who I know when I was a terrorism prosecutor, she was one of my agents on one of my cases. He flat out asked her, "Is Ray Epps a fed?" And she said under oath, "I can't answer that."
[Sound bite/Ted Cruz]:
I want to turn to the FBI. How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th?
[Sound bite/Jill Sandborn]:
Sir, I'm sure you can appreciate that I can't go into the specifics of sources and methods.
[Sound bite/Ted Cruz]:
Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of January 6th? Yes or no?
[Sound bite/Jill Sandborn]:
Sir. I can't answer that.
[Sound bite/Ted Cruz]:
Did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit crimes of violence on January 6th?
[Sound bite/Jill Sandborn]:
I can't answer that, sir.
[Sound bite/Ted Cruz]:
Did any FBI agents or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on January 6th?
[Sound bite/Jill Sandborn]:
Sir. I can't answer that.
[Sound bite/Ted Cruz]:
Ms. Sandborn, who is Ray Epps?
[Sound bite/Jill Sandborn]:
I'm aware of the individual, sir. I don't have the specific background to him.
[Sound bite/Ted Cruz]:
Well, there are a lot of people who are understandably very concerned about Mr. Epps. On the night of January 5th, 2021, Epps wandered around the crowd that had gathered and there's video out there of him chanting, "Tomorrow, we need to get into the Capitol, into the Capitol." This was strange behavior. So strange that the crowd began chanting, "Fed, fed, fed, fed, fed, fed." Ms. Sandborn, was Ray Epps a fed?"
[Sound bite/Jill Sandborn]:
Sir. I cannot answer that question.
[Sound bite/Ted Cruz]:
The next day on January 6th, Mr. Epps is seen whispering to a person and five seconds later, five seconds after he is whispering to a person, that same person begins to forcibly tear down the barricades. Did Mr. Epps urge them to tear down the barricades?
[Sound bite/Jill Sandborn]:
Sir, similar to the other answers, I cannot answer that.
[Sound bite/Ted Cruz]:
Shortly thereafter, the FBI put out a public post listing, seeking information on individuals connected with violent crimes on January 6th. Among those individuals in the bottom there is Mr. Epps. The FBI publicly asked for information identifying, offering cash rewards for information leading to the arrest. This was posted and then sometime later magically Mr. Epps disappeared from the public posting. According to public records, Mr. Epps has not been charged with anything. No one's explained why a person videoed urging people to go to the Capitol, a person whose conduct was so suspect the crowd believed he was a fed, would magically disappear from the list of people the FBI was looking at.
Ms. Sandborn, a lot of Americans are concerned that the federal government deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on January 6th. My question to you, and this is not an ordinary law enforcement question. This is a question of public accountability. Did federal agents or those in service of federal agents actively encourage violent and criminal conduct on January 6th?
[Sound bite/Jill Sandborn]:
Not to my knowledge, sir.
[Sound bite/Ted Cruz]:
Thank you.
Mr. Patel:
Not, I don't know who that is. Not, I don't know what you're talking about. Not even, Mr. Senator, we can discuss that in private. And it reminds me so much of the whole Christopher Steele scenario. When I first told Congressman Nunes and then we eventually started telling the media through our investigation that Christopher Steele was an operative for the Hillary Clinton campaign and an operative for the FBI, and an operative that was used in FISA warrant application unlawfully. People thought we were nuts. The parallels are striking, and I'm not jumping fully to that conclusion on January 6th, but the questions demand answers and those documents, if it's true, it's very easy to prove. The FBI will have a trove of documentation on Ray Epps. Did he, was he sent in by law enforcement, local or otherwise? Did he have a group, were there undercover agents in the crowd that day?
Did those agents let people into the Capitol building, as we've seen in some of these videos that are finally unraveling? It's not that everybody broke in. Others, many literally walked in through open doors and they've all been charged. There's a thing called entrapment. It's a defense in the United States for every crime if basically what you can prove is that the government goaded you into committing that crime.
And we saw it in the Whitmer case in Michigan. Governor Whitmer was charged or she wasn't charged, but a number of individuals were charged with attempting to kidnap and kill her. The defense in that case was the FBI entrapped the defendants and a host of the defendants were acquitted based on that entrapment argument. And that due process can only occur if the FBI is willing to turn over the entire trove of documentation, which they haven't done so for January 6th. So I really hope the committees that come in after November focus on getting the documentations that show what actually happened and show the failures and if there was any corruption or abuse. Show that to the American people so we can maybe finally hold some of those folks accountable.
Mr. Jekielek:
So it's interesting that you mentioned Ray Epps. Of course, he's been referenced many times as someone who, obviously, is agitating for people to go enter the Capitol. He's on camera many times doing this and at the same time he hasn't been charged. And like you said, it's unclear what his connection with the government is. In the documentary, “The Real Story of January 6,” that we just did, we've identified about 100 people on footage that are in this kind of a gray area where they're unidentified. They look like they're doing something to basically try to enter or encourage others to enter. It's actually quite a number of people that are just kind of unaccounted for. Given the incredible level of scrutiny, which theoretically has been given to all the footage, why are there these 100 people that are in this situation?
Mr. Patel:
Yes. It's tragic. And look, as a former public defender and federal prosecutor who champions due process on both sides of the aisle, it's rare for someone to have served in both roles. I'm looking at all these defendants, and we'll get to that in a second. But being a part of the Epoch community, I was able to watch “The Real Story of January 6” and I'm able to chat about it a little bit here. One of the things that was sort of embarrassing for me, for an individual who had covered January 6th so extensively was, I didn't know the details of Rosanne Boyland and that hit me pretty hard. She was there and on the ground unconscious, and once she was unconscious, she continued to be struck by this Capitol police officer that has since been identified with a baton over and over and over again. She died.
How much of America doesn't know that story? What's happened to this Capitol police officer? Are they still in the force? I know DOJ hasn't charged him. I know we would've heard about that, him or her, I believe it's a lady. And the fact that the Epoch documentary covered that so extensively was something I hope a lot of people take away, not just the other things that you mentioned, but that people died at the hands of law enforcement on that day.
And just because she was there on behalf of Trump or what have you, no one's ever heard of her? Is her family filing a lawsuit against the Capitol Police, against the Department of Justice, against the FBI? As the documentary also exposes through a brilliant expert in police tactics, you're not supposed to strike someone while they're on the ground with a baton and already unconscious. That person should be handcuffed and their life should be secured, not pummeled and they end up tragically dying.
So it was just kind of a wake up call to me too that we have a long way to go on uncovering what happened on January 6th and holding people accountable. The documentary is a fascinating look into the people that were there. From my perspective, the young man's story from Texas is also very powerful that I remember. And so I hope people watch it, but I hope it forces a public outcry to demand answers from the government. And I think that will fold in nicely timewise with the shifting of the gavels in the majority, as we expect in November. And maybe we can get some answers, not just on Ray Epps, but on Rosanne and on the Capitol Police and their tactics utilized on that day. Because as a former law enforcement guy, I was shocked to see some of the combative behavior of Capitol Police. Literally I saw at one instance in the documentary, an individual being thrown off a balcony and plummeting 25 feet to the ground.
And then he had to be stretched away. I don't know what happened to him. There was no reason for the Capitol Police to have thrown that man off. He was not striking anybody. And it was just shocking to see law enforcement act that way. And what's the height of hypocrisy for me is that it used to be the liberal left to champion themselves as the bastion of due process. And the ACLU and the like would be like, everybody gets defense and the constitution applies equally. I've always felt that. I'm the rare guy that actually did it in the court of law as a public defender and then later as a prosecutor.
And it seems like all these voices have just gone quiet because the targets and the victims in these scenarios outlined in the documentary are people who voted for President Trump. That happens in banana republics; that does not happen in this United States of America, but evidently, Jan I'm wrong. It's happening today in our country here. And we should be reminded of the lessons of other republics and countries around the world that we sort of talk down to who don't allow this kind of behavior.
Mr. Jekielek:
You mentioned Stan Kephart. This is basically a national expert in looking at police action and analyzing. I thought that was one of the more fascinating parts of the documentary to me, where you just can kind of look and see what happens and how does this square with what would be reasonable police behavior based on actual video footage. That's what he's doing.
Mr. Patel:
He's not just an expert, he's an actual cop. He did it for decades and then he became an expert, and then he's testified in thousands of criminal cases. To be qualified as an expert, I don't think people realize the career you have to have first and then to go into court, in state and federal court and be qualified as an expert, meaning you have to be put through the ringer and then have your testimony rightly so scrutinized and your documentation scrutinized to a level that's acceptable to judges. It's a high standard. So it's a very credible individual who speaks to these events and these actions.
Mr. Jekielek:
Yeah, no. Of course I encourage everyone to go watch the January 6th documentary. In fact, I think today on Friday, it's available free dollar subscriber. There's going to be a little bit of a charge for it after that.
Mr. Patel:
Yeah. You could have had a marathon viewing. Today you could watch the documentary and season one of Kash's Corner.
Mr. Jekielek:
The other thing that really struck me in the documentary actually was the people like Victoria White, for example, who is someone who is being prosecuted for being there. But at the same time, you can see clearly on video that she's actually trying to stop people who are actually trying to break into the Capitol [and] break windows. She's like, we don't do that here. How does that work in a situation like this? I suppose a person could be both guilty of doing something untoward and at the same time be trying to stop ostensibly violent action and so forth. So how does the law square in these kinds of situations?
Mr. Patel:
Yes. There's a whole legal principle that governs these scenarios, where if someone participates in a criminal action, they can actually, what's called, withdraw from it. And to do so there's, we're given a high level here, but basically if you are a participant and then you withdraw from it and inform law enforcement that someone is committing the crime and make an effort to stop it, then you can't be held liable under the law. And it sounds like that's the scenario for this young lady who may have been involved in somewhat of the trespassing, but at a certain point, the video shows clearly she literally was seeking the assistance of law enforcement and stopping the demonstrators from committing any acts of violence or getting into the Capitol building, which seems to fit that legal description I just described.
So it seems that the Department of Justice has made up its mind already that they're going to prosecute her and not allow that theory to avoid a prosecution. She can raise it at trial, but it's very difficult to prove. We're going to have to wait and see how all these, almost 1000 or so individuals who've now been charged as a result of January 6th, how all those cases shake out.
Mr. Jekielek:
We also have Aaron Babbitt, Ashli Babbitt's husband, basically on interview. And we also have footage that cuts deeply against the legacy media narrative around what exactly happened around Ashli Babbitt's death, which was to me, again, also quite fascinating and new. So anyway, I encourage everyone to watch the doc. And meantime, there's another group that actually kind of entered the Capitol under strange circumstances more recently. And I know you've had some thoughts about that. Of course, this is Stephen Colbert's production team.
Mr. Patel:
Yes. I've had a lot of thoughts on that, as have so many Americans that have pinged me on, whether it's on Truth Social or wherever have said, is this another instance of a two-tier system of justice? One set of rules in law for a different group and another application of that same law if you voted Trump. To me, it is. To me, if anyone that's of the 800 plus individuals that have been charged as a result of January 6th, the overwhelming majority have been charged with misdemeanor offenses, such as trespassing or parading into and around the Capitol building. That simply means they were there when they didn't have a legal right to be there. And so if those individuals were charged, why did Stephen Colbert's crew get a complete hall pass from the Department of Justice?
The Capitol Police themselves said publicly that the entire group that was there, I believe it was nine people, were told you cannot be here. It is unlawful for you to be here. They were given warnings. They did not leave. In fact, they caused such a commotion that a democratic staffer actually called the Capitol Police and said, this is causing an emergency scenario. So the Capitol Police rightfully arrested them after giving them fair warning, which is what is required under the law. And what's the difference between them and the folks that walked in through open doors in the United States Capitol on January 6th and have since been charged with trespassing?
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, one difference that people will point to is there were actually congressional members that invited them there in the first place.
Mr. Patel:
Sure. And the United States Capitol on any given day is a place where any American or actual foreigner can walk into. You don't need an invitation. But like many houses of government, there are certain areas you can't be and certain things you can't do no matter who invites you. I used to work in the White House, and just because I would invite family or friends to come see the Brady Press Room, didn't mean they have a hall pass to go sit in the Oval Office. We laugh at that, but it's the exact same scenario. Just because you get an invitation by the Department of Justice or FBI to go see the corridor with the historic artifacts and paintings, doesn't mean you can walk into the attorney general's office and have a seat. It's trespassing. It's illegal.
Mr. Jekielek:
So you're saying if Tucker Carlson, for example, if his production crew came in and went to some prominent democratic congressional members offices and basically knocking on doors heavily and asking for access, that would be played a bit differently?
Mr. Patel:
Well, I think if they change that up a little differently to make the facts more similar. If Tucker Carlson's crew or whoever's crew came in and did what Colbert's crew did, they would've been rightfully arrested and prosecuted. That's the difference. And now Americans are frustrated because people who perform the same activities on two different days, who clearly support two completely opposite political ideologies, are being prosecuted under the law based on that political ideology. In the United States attorney's office for the District of Columbia hasn't said anything as to why these individuals haven't been prosecuted. It was their decision. It's not the Capitol Police decision. The Capitol Police make the arrest and they are the arresting authority. They're the investigative authority, but the decision to charge is the DOJ decision as it always is under the law.
And I would like to know, why did they get out of jail free card, literally get out of jail free card when they broke the law and trespassed on Capitol grounds? And I don't think we'll find out an answer, but I think it's one of those frustrating things that we have to talk about because we keep highlighting instances of a two-tier system of justice, and that's never supposed to happen in the United States of America and tragically it's happening with greater and greater frequency. And I don't know what else it's going to take for the mainstream media to start covering it appropriately. Maybe when it finally does actually happen to them.
Mr. Jekielek:
I want to switch things up a little bit. Something that we've talked a little bit about before is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Milley. Basically he was in the room with you. I remember we talked about this at least once on the show, when president Trump authorized those 20,000 National Guardsmen several days prior to January 6th. Now, you've pointed out that he didn't mention that in his testimony to the January 6th committee.
Mr. Patel:
Well, it hasn't come out that he did. And so just a quick recap for our audience. I was there in the Oval Office with the president of the United States, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense and the chief of staff to the president, days before January 6th, talking about a sensitive matter unrelated to anything domestically. And afterwards, President Trump said, "You have the authorization for up to 20,000 National Guardsmen should you need it for security posture for January 6th anywhere in the country."
And the reason that was important was because the United States Supreme Court and the legislature have passed the law that says there can be no domestic use of the military unless you utilize National Guard and there's a presidential authorization, which he did days before, and a request, and part two, a request by local government, mayor of DC or the Capitol Police, since it's DC.
We went to the mayor of DC, we went to the Capitol Police and we've now got the documents from the Capitol police themselves and the mayor refusing the assistance of National Guardsmen and women on January 4th and leading up through January 6th. And those documents speak for themselves. They're not ours, they're theirs. And the reason chairman Milley's deafening silence is so important on this issue is because he's the highest ranking uniform military officer in the country who is not in the chain of command by law. He was in the room. There have been so many leaks from this January 6th committee. If he, and this is my, and I have not seen the entirety of his testimony, but they've of course played snippets of it. But if they had a piece of testimony where Chairman Milley said, the president did not say that. The secretary of defense, the chief of staff to the DoD who I work for are lying, that would've leaked by now, in my opinion.
And so for the chairman to have heard his testimony being paraded around in the media the last couple of weeks, for him to not issue a statement, I think is a miscarriage of justice. And I think, in my opinion is a form of lying. Because just because you don't actually go out there and overtly lie, as we're always taught in court, excuse me, in law school, when we're trying cases in court, if you omit the truth that is tantamount to lying. He was in the office, in the Oval Office with us. I know it. I saw him. I know he heard it. We talked about it afterwards. More importantly, on January 6th, when the request finally came in, late in the day from Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser, the DoD took swift action. As evidenced by Biden's DoD inspector general's report, where Biden's DoD inspector general quotes that we acted appropriately and without delay in relation to the National Guard.
We could not have taken that action under the law if the president hadn't already authorized those troops. It is literally unconstitutional to do so and Mark Milley knows that. So it's just another tragic point in our ongoing saga of January 6th, where you have people who aren't willing to come out. And I remind our audience, Mark Milley had no problem talking to book authors while he was sitting as chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the Trump administration to get his narratives out. He had no problem talking to the media and leaking to the media to get stories that made him look out and talk about the German Reichstag, and compare that to somehow the Trump administration. So a man who has time to do that has plenty of time to put out the truth. He's selectively chosen not to because he's being a political animal and trying to stay in his role.
Furthermore, I don't think what hasn't been talked about, but what the committee has been talking about is how the vice president, Pence and Mark Milley had conversations on January 6th, where the vice president was ordering the National Guard and Mark Milley was acting on it. That's the testimony that came out from Mark Milley. I don't understand how that matter has not been corrected. The vice president and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have no operational authority whatsoever under the law in the Constitution. The vice president cannot order the Department of Defense or the National Guard to do anything. He's not in the chain of command. And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this one or anyone, since 1951 has been excluded from the chain of command by the law passed by the United States Congress, because he is an advisor.
So when the January 6th committee puts out these snippets of videos from Mark Milley saying he talked to the vice president and the vice president was ordering National Guard here and there, it's meaningless. It's a political headline because most Americans aren't supposed to know better that this is the inner workings of how the chain of command works. We've been very clear how the chain of command works because it's in the law. The national command authority goes from the president of the United States to the secretary of defense. That's it. There's no in between. Now, the secretary of defense can choose to delegate it to other secretaries under him, but not the chairman. The chairman is prohibited from engaging in the chain of command. So this red herring by the January 6th committee about ordering National Guard through the vice president is a further distraction from the fact that President Trump authorized it.
We went forward and now we have the documentation of Muriel Bowser who refused it leading up to January 6th and the Biden DoD inspector general report that shows that we under the Trump administration acted appropriately and without delay. That's not our conclusion. That's Joe Biden's DoD. So had we done anything wrong I think it would've been borne out in that report and many others, but there's so many documents that haven't come out and I hope we keep getting more so we can talk about them. I think we finally have one from the secretary of defense that we can talk about.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, so exactly, this is what I was just thinking about. We have this document speaking of chain of command with the secretary of defense authorizing the secretary of the army in the chain of command to basically not have to go back and ask further, should the National Guard be requested. Right?
Mr. Patel:
Exactly. So, and again, what most people don't know and shouldn't know because unless you're in government and at that level, why would you? The National Guard reports to the secretary of the army, the secretary of the army reports to the secretary of defense, the office of the secretary of defense, White House chief of staff. Once President Trump made the authorization, and I think we should put this up right now, the secretary of defense, Chris Miller’s memo dated January 4th. He wrote to the secretary of the army at the time, Ryan McCarthy and said, we are essentially delegating you the authority to act immediately when Muriel Bowser calls upon a request for more National Guard. What did he do? Why was that significant? We preemptively did not want bureaucracy and a paper delay to delay the employment and activation of the DC National Guard. We preemptively delegated that authority, which was our right to do so, the secretary's right to do so to the sec army.
And the instructions you see on this memo that you're seeing right now are not the Department of Defense's origination. The way the National Guard works under the law is the requesting authority dictates the parameters of the use of the National Guard. So those bullets you see there where it says, no batons, no riot gear, or no ammunition, et cetera, that is Muriel Bowser's office telling us if and when she ever requests National Guard, this is the manner in which they're to be utilized. That is how the National Guard works.
And what's frustrating to me now is that everybody is now starting to say, well, when they called for the National Guard on January 6th, where were they? Well, if you look at the DoD timeline, which we've talked about, which the secretary's office has put out, you'll see it took less than four minutes for that authorization to be complete because of our delegation, less than four minutes. But it takes a little longer than four minutes to go pull American civilians from their communities, from their families who are acting as teachers and firefighters, and librarians, and homeschoolers, to fly them in to DC, to kit them up, put them in the appropriate attire, give them their directions under the law and then deploy them.
And that's what these politicians know, but what they're lying about, because they know it, is that it takes time. But one of the things I'm most proud about is that we under President Trump and under the secretary's authority effectuated the fastest cold start of the United States National Guard since World War II. So in over almost 60 years, it was the fastest the United States National Guard has ever been what we call employed, deployed, and kited out.
Mr. Jekielek:
What is that time by the way? What is the fastest time?
Mr. Patel:
Hours.
Mr. Jekielek:
Yeah. How long is-
Mr. Patel:
Without the DoD timeline in front of me, we can put it up for our audience, but it was hours, it was a few hours, I believe. What we had done was what we always do at the Department of Defense, we call it reps and sets. We prepare, we prepare, we prepare, we prepare. We knew there might come a time and point when a request came in, but the law only allows us to go so far. So we went all the way up to the limit of the law. And we said, what's the place we can hold everyone before saying go? And we had everybody lined up. We had the equipment ready. We had the buses ready. We had everything ready to the fullest extent of the law. And once the request came in, we hit go and they came.
So refer to the timeline. That's now public that I've put out and that many others I've put out from the Department of Defense, which is signed off on by secretary of defense, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, secretary of the army, me and a dozen other people, high ranking officers at DoD, shows that once the request finally came in the late afternoon of January 6th, I'm going off my memory here, within a few hours, the Department of Defense had assisted local law enforcement to quell the protest, to return Congress and the senators to the chamber so they can conduct the business that they've requested to do, which was the certification of the election. That's how fast we moved. Had Muriel Bowser, the Capitol Police said beforehand, a day or two earlier, we want your National Guard. We would've set up a wall of human beings in and around the Capitol, which would've completely changed the posture, the security situation, and what happened on January 6th.
And you don't have to take my word that Muriel Bowser said no. Look at the letter she wrote us that we're putting up right now. And you don't have to take my word that the Capitol police said no. Look at the Capitol Police's timeline, which we have now also gotten. Where the chief of the Capitol Police went to the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and the House, the Sergeant at Arms controls the Capitol Police. His request for authorization of the National Guard was denied. It's in their timeline on January 4th.
So we did what we could have done to the fullest extent of the law at the Department of Defense and their political leadership bucked them. So I think we talked about it earlier, there needs to be some answers from those in leadership positions should the gavels change in November as to why would you refuse this lawful request to secure, not just the building, but you, members of Congress and the citizens that you knew were going to be in and around the area.
To me, that's the biggest question that this committee will never ask, because they don't want to know the answer to that. They don't want to know that politicians got in the way and they cared more about optics than security. And I think as more and more people keep talking about January 6th, I think more and more people like Epoch, do these great documentaries, it's going to force attention on it. And you're going to have to keep telling the American people the truth. And I can't emphasize enough, you don't have to listen to us, you don't have to watch this show, go read the documents. We're going to put them up. We'll put them up online. We'll put them up on Truth Social. We'll put them up on the show. They're not our documents. They're the documents of the United States government, some of which, the agencies I was a part of, that show what happened.
Mr. Jekielek:
As we're finishing up here Kash, I think it's worth mentioning that Steve Bannon is actually held in contempt of Congress, charged with that and on trial as we speak.
Mr. Patel:
I think it's just another example of how politics are overcoming due process and charging decisions would look at it this way. I was talking to my friend Devin Nunes just a little while ago. And he said, "Hey Kash, when we issued 17 subpoenas in Congress for the Russiagate investigation and when cabinet secretaries, government officials violated those subpoenas, did you see the Department of Justice move to charge them and hold them in contempt of Congress?" No, because they acted appropriately back then in terms of levying the power of the Department of Justice. And the decision to bring contempt charges like this DOJ has done to multiple people now is one that has been overly politicized in my opinion. And we'll see how it shakes out. But what I think is scary to many Americans is if you wear a certain political hat, you are going to be treated much, much, much differently than if you wear the other hat.
And look, a perfect example is, we've talked about it extensively on the show. Look at the way Michael Sussman was treated versus the way Peter Navarro was treated. I don't care if you like or hate both those guys or don't even know who they are. Michael Sussman was charged with some serious offenses by a special counsel. And he was allowed to turn himself in through the negotiations of his attorney, not be handcuffed and perp walked, and embarrassed and quietly have that happen. Then the judicial system kicked off. Peter Navarro, who was an elderly individual, who I of course personally know from my time in the White House, was handcuffed and shackled at an airport in broad daylight and thrown into solitary confinement after he was charged with contempt of Congress. Michael Sussman was charged with a federal felony and given the rainbow treatment. Peter Navarro was charged with a misdemeanor offense and was caricatured for all the media to use and bandy about.
And what is this Department of Justice doing, allowing that sort of behavior? This is the kind of disparate treatment, the two tier system of justice that we've been talking about forever. Whether it's anything related to Sussman and Durham, and all the other stuff we'll talk about, and Bannon's trial. I don't have too many of the details there, but same thing with Bannon, that's how he was brought in. So it's just, as a former federal prosecutor, it's just shocking that this is happening in 2022 in the United States of America. But I think that's why we at Epoch Times have to keep hammering the truth about how people are treated once the judicial system gets going.
I think a great place to end Jan is, look at the way the Jan 6th detains have been treated. Some of them should be prosecuted for breaking the law. And some of them should be held, some, should be held without bond. But the overwhelming majority of individuals who are being held without bond and have almost no criminal record, if any, is unheard of. And for the Justice Department to request no bond and for the judges in these cases to quash an individual's due process rights and hold them no bond is equally offensive to me. And I hope somebody investigates those matters because what you're doing is you're creating a scenario where you force someone into solitary confinement now for over a year, the only way to get out is you offer them a plea and you say, hey, just plea to this and you can walk free tomorrow. That's not justice. That's the opposite of it.
Mr. Jekielek:
And as we know, as we've seen in the documentary, there are actually people in this context who have taken their lives because of the pressure.
Mr. Patel:
And I don't think that pressure is dissipating anytime soon. It'll probably wrench up because this DOJ wants to get these prosecutions across the finish line before the midterms or before the end of the year, while they still have the Select Committee backing their play. And I say that because I was also offended to see that in a federal court pleading for one of the Jan 6 cases, the Department of Justice for the first time I've ever heard of actually told a federal judge, we need to delay the case because Congress is still investigating the matter. I have never, ever heard in my life an executive branch agency, the DOJ coming second to a congressional oversight investigation. It's literally the opposite of what DOJ has done for its entire career. But they've chosen to do that in this case because they've chosen to make politics more important than the constitution, than due process and the law. And I don't blame people for losing faith in this DOJ or FBI because their leadership is forcing Americans to see it that way.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, Kash, we're going to obviously be talking a lot more about these things over the coming weeks on Kash's Corner. And I'm very glad to be back. These are heavy, heavy, difficult topics. And I think there's going to be a lot of that on coming episodes. And I want to encourage everyone, of course, do this double header, like Kash mentioned earlier. By all means, please go watch the January 6th documentary. We have the link to it in the description here. We'll also put a short link up for you in the video itself so you can have easy access. And Kash, it's time for our shout out.
Mr. Patel:
Since we're kicking off season five, our shout out goes to all our fans at Kash's Corner and those on Epoch TV. We love your comments. We are loving the live chat feature that we do on some of our episodes. So we're going to keep doing that. So please keep messaging us. Please keep engaging us on Friday nights. And we'll see you next week on Kash's Corner.
[Sound bite/Speaker 5]:
That was a shooting gallery up there.
[Sound bite/Speaker 6]:
I could hear the tremble in her voice.
[Sound bite/Speaker 7]:
She suffered a very severe beating. The video is pretty graphic.
[Sound bite/Speaker 8]:
Justice for us seems almost impossible.
[Sound bite/Speaker 9]:
It's not fun to watch somebody die and they knew she was in more of a parallel.
[Sound bite/Speaker 10]:
They have not asked the hard questions. Why was the Capitol intentionally unsecure that day?
Mr. Patel:
The FBI had information about security concerns before January 6th.
[Sound bite/Speaker 11]:
They're out for blood and they're getting it. They appear to be winning.
[Sound bite/Speaker 12]:
Were the actions of the Capitol Police out of line? Were their violations and use of force?
[Sound bite/Speaker 13]:
Now I describe it as an inside job.
[Sound bite/Speaker 14]:
I'm ready to do whatever God calls me.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Follow EpochTV on social media:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVus
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTV
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@EpochTV
Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtv
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVus
Gab: https://gab.com/EpochTV
Telegram: https://t.me/EpochTV
– The Real Story of Jan. 6 Documentary（102 Minutes, Color） "The Real Story of Jan. 6," a documentary by The Epoch Times, reveals the truth that has been hidden from the American people. While a narrative has been set that what took place that day was an insurrection, key events and witnesses have been ignored, until now.
WATCH NOW: TheRealStoryOfJan6.com BUY DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6–
