EpochTV - The Epoch Times
video_save_icon
Save
video_comment_icon
Comment
video_share_icon
live_chat_btn
Live Chat

Kash Patel: It’s Time to Fence the FBI’s Money and Force Them to Release Document on Biden Family Dealings

Views 41.5K
June-02-2023
The FBI has repeatedly declined a request from House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) to hand over an internal document detailing an alleged “criminal scheme” involving President Joe Biden’s family. Rep. Comer says he’s going to move forward on holding FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress.
What Congress should do, says Kash Patel, is to fence the money of the FBI. “There’s a fencing process on Capitol Hill. Without getting into all the details … you can just imagine an imaginary fence goes around a big pile of money, and Congress has the lock and key. And if the FBI wants their big pile of money in this fence, they have to comply with a request from Congress, i.e. give us the document unredacted.”
We also discuss former FBI Director James Comey’s response to the Durham report and recent news that the DOJ has charged two alleged Chinese agents for a bribery scheme targeting Falun Gong practitioners in the United States.
The suspected Chinese agents bribed what they thought was an IRS official—actually an FBI undercover agent—with thousands of dollars, and promised $50,000 more, in an attempt to strip the tax-exempt status of an entity run by Falun Gong practitioners, according to court filings.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Kash Patel: Hey everybody, and welcome back to Kash's Corner. Before we get started, Jan, I know we have a special announcement for our audience. Next Friday night, June 9th, we are going to be airing a live, unedited episode of Kash's Corner. That's June 9th, 4:30 PM Eastern Standard Time. We'll also be doing a live chat and have a live audience with us on that occasion. That's next Friday at 4:30 PM EST. If you can't catch us on the live show, we will be replaying it at our normal broadcasted time of 8:00 PM EST.
Jan Jekielek: Kash, we have a lot to talk about today. As usual, a lot of it has to do with the FBI and the DOJ. We're going to talk about the FBI refusing to respond to Rep. Comer's subpoena, that's number one. Secondly, we have former FBI director Comey responding to the Durham Report with something possibly outrageous. We'll get you to comment on this. The third thing is I want to highlight some important and powerful work that the FBI and DOJ has done recently.
Mr. Patel: It should be a good episode. Jan, where would you like to kick it off?
Mr. Jekielek: The big story is that the FBI has refused to comply with this subpoena from Congress, which I didn't realize was an option for them.
Mr. Patel: I don't think you're the only person, Jan, that didn't realize that was an actual option. Let's bring our audience up to speed. I know there have been a lot of different whistleblowers that we've been covering in a lot of different areas. Let's narrow it down as to what this subpoena specifically asked for and what it's directed at.
Chairman Comer of the House Oversight Committee, together with Senator Grassley have been pretty keen on protecting whistleblowers who provide credible information. They've also been very demanding, and rightfully so, of documentation that backs up and supports the claims the whistleblowers are making.
Chairman Comer and his team have methodically laid out over the course of months the investigation into what has been dubbed in the media, the Biden pay-for-play scheme. Over time Chairman Comer has been doing this investigation, getting documentation from the FBI, talking to witnesses and whistleblowers, and having interviews conducted under oath of officials and private citizens to advance this investigation.
He's doing it very methodically in a way I completely agree with, like we did when we ran the Russiagate investigation from the House Intel Committee. You have to collect both witness testimony and documentary testimony. Congress is a separate branch of government, so they don't have direct access to the executive branch's holdings, the FBI and DOJ. How they determine what the FBI and DOJ have is through these types of investigations that I've just described.
Chairman Comer and his committee have put out a number of documents outlining nine specific Biden family members. Chairman Comer, through prior investigative subpoenas from Congress acquired banking records that showed those nine individuals have received monies from LLCs and companies with direct ties to the CCP to the tune of $10 million and more. This is in aggregate, and so that's pretty alarming if the Biden family has been doing business with each other and the CCP. But what's more alarming is were they doing it—this is what Comer has been looking at—while President Biden has been president and how far back did it go?
What Chairman Comer has told us through what we covered in the prior episode is about the money and the transactions. As we always say on our show, Jan, money doesn't lie and the banking transactions go back years to his time as Vice President of the United States. He has spawned an investigation that goes back nearly a decade, and that to me is the most troubling part. Now, Jan, returning to the subpoena in question-
Mr. Jekielek: Let me jump in. I'm going to read Comer's statement "Today the FBI informed the committee that it will not provide the unclassified documents subpoenaed by the committee." I'll just comment that those are documents that have been identified by a whistleblower and they're looking to get the original document from the FBI.
Now, back to Comer here, "The FBI's decision to stiff arm Congress and hide this information from the American people is obstructionist and unacceptable. I have a call scheduled with FBI Director Wray tomorrow,” that's today as we're filming right now, “to discuss his response further. The committee has been clear in its intent to protect Congressional oversight authorities and will now be taking steps to hold the FBI director in contempt of Congress."
I still didn't realize that the FBI could say to its oversight body, "No, we will not produce what you want." Then secondly, that an FBI director could be held in contempt of Congress. Why don't you flesh this out for me?
Mr. Patel: The answer to your first question is they're not allowed to do it. The answer to your second question is, yes, they can be held in contempt, but we'll get to that. I want to return real quick to the specific document because it's important. The subpoena doesn't ask for the FBI's entire vault on everything Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Joe Biden's brother, and family. It asks for one specific document, what we call an FBI 1023, that's just fancy FBI verbiage for a source or a confidential human report.
That means that at some point in time, and not just in this investigation, the FBI conducts investigations through its agents. They meet with and through confidential human sources and interact and produce investigative leads, and they document it. In this instance, Jan, what Chairman Comer or Senator Grassley have been saying is they have had whistleblowers come forward from the FBI and DOJ and elsewhere and tell them that this document specifically exists.
That means they have firsthand knowledge of this source reporting that the FBI has documented. I would note that we are not talking about a classified document. How do we know that? Chairman Comer and Senator Grassley have informed the FBI that this document is in fact unclassified and the FBI has confirmed that the document is unclassified.
I highlight that because the FBI and DOJ have a habit of going back and putting up a protectional wall to stiff arm Congress, to borrow from chairman Comer's language, to say, "No classified information. We can't give you any of that," which is a total farce. But now we don't even have that layer. If you recall, Jan, we did this similar play when I was running the Russiagate investigation with Chairman Nunes. We were the first ones in Congress to subpoena the FBI 1023s on Christopher Steele.
Do you recall what happened, Jan, when we issued those subpoenas? The FBI and the media came out and lambasted us. They said that we are going to ruin foreign relations, we are going to kill people in the field, and we are going to destroy investigations. Do you know what happened, Jan, when we finally forced them to produce the documentation?
We showed the corruption of the FBI's Confidential Human Source program to cover up the FBI's corruption. We showed its lies to the FISA court. We basically dismantled the criminal syndicate operated from within the FBI by the likes of James Comey, who we'll get to in a second. The reason I bring that up is because we did it with a righteous investigation, and I believe Chairman Comer is doing the exact same thing and he's following this exact same path. He has requested it formally via letter, he's requested it publicly, he's informed the public of what he's doing and why he wants it.
He has established credible whistleblower testimony. He's not out there just shooting willy-nilly. He has done this very methodically, and now he's at the point where the FBI has for months, if not weeks, but I think now it's months, Jan, refused to produce this document.
They've acknowledged that it exists. They've told the chairman who has oversight constitutionally over the FBI and this investigation that, "You can't have it." The reason they're saying that is the same pretextual farce, "Sources and methods are going to be exposed and people are going to die, and you're going to jeopardize investigations."
First of all, we now know without a doubt that you can deliver this sort of information to Chairman Comer and Senator Grassley and their team and protect sources and methods. We've done it a hundred times over in the past. We also know that they can—and I think this is where they'll go—they'll redact information. Here's an interesting thing, Jan, now that we're talking about redactions, this actually reminds me.
After stonewalling Congress like they're known to do when it comes to oversight and production of documents, the FBI would have produced a document. They put one up that's mostly black lines, 90 percent redacted. You can't see what's there and then you have to fight to get the redactions removed. In this instance, they didn't even do that.
They just said, "No, you are not getting an unclassified 1023 document to further the constitutional oversight that you Chairman Coleman and Senator Grassley have over us." That is shocking, Jan. They just skipped all the in between processes. We call it the accommodation process where there's always a back and forth between Congress and the agencies and departments it oversees to get to this material.
Usually, you can do a number of things like we did. We created a whole separate room at the DOJ where these documents were kept so nobody could go in and out. We limited access and worked with the DOJ and FBI to do that. This was a month-long accommodation process. They didn't even do that in this instance. They didn't even give the actual members of Congress the opportunity to have access to it.
Now, I want to know what it says more than ever. What Comer has publicly said about it is very limited, so we obviously don't know the contents. But Chairman Comer and his team have reported that the document has information specifically related to payments, and Vice President Biden and/or his family. That's what we know is public. He even provided that verbiage to the FBI to help them tailor the production.
Comer was going out of his way to say, "You don't even have to give us the whole big file, just give us the one that relates to this." It's like doing a keyword search in your search engine on the internet. That's exactly what Comer did for them, because he knows what's in it and he wants to obtain it properly and show the world.
Mr. Jekielek: As a layperson, I was just flabbergasted at this. I suppose it's one thing to have someone that's just out in society refuse to comply with something, but it's a whole different thing when it's like the head of the agency that you are providing oversight to. You're the boss of what happens. How is this possible? What do the rules say?
Mr. Patel: Let's look at recent history, Jan. We can look at both my Russiagate investigation, and then the January 6th committee and their investigation from the House of Representatives. What you can normally do, Jan, is what we did. You fight the agencies and departments. They say, "No, there's no corruption." You say, "No, we have information that there is." Then, you get the heads together, the chairmen and chairwomen and directors. They sit in a room and say, “Okay, let's figure this out.” Obviously we're past all of that.
There's basically two things that can happen, and Speaker McCarthy has been very public about this. He said beforehand that should Director Wray refuse to comply with Chairman Comer's subpoena, he as the Speaker of the House would permit the initiation of a contempt proceeding against Director Wray. That's important because you have to have the speaker’s say-so in order to initiate a contempt proceeding against a senior level official in the United States government. The director of the FBI would qualify, since he's the head of law enforcement.
But what I'm advising Chairman Comer, Speaker McCarthy and company to do is to hold Director Wray in contempt of Congress and look to the past to see why that's possible and doable. The January 6th committee issued subpoenas for two private citizens, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, and those individuals refused to comply with those congressional subpoenas.
The matter was referred to the Department of Justice to hold those individuals in contempt. The DOJ ran a quick investigation and brought federal charges. Those individuals have been tried and convicted in federal court for violating a congressional subpoena after being held in contempt of Congress.
It's a two-step process. First, what happens is there's a referral to the entire House of Representatives. It stays on that side of the Congressional House for now, and there is a vote. There must be a majority-plus vote to pass the article to hold an individual, whether private citizen or government official, in contempt of Congress, like the Jan 6 committee did with Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon.
They'll do the same thing here, supposedly, if Speaker McCarthy goes through on his word to hold Chris Wray in contempt. Once that vote is complete, I believe the Republicans have the vote to cross the threshold and hold Christopher Wray in contempt. What happens next?
What should happen is a referral to the DOJ. But Jan, we've talked about this on our show ad nauseum, how this DOJ and FBI are working in concert to cover up their own corruption. They've done so repeatedly, in order to retaliate against whistleblowers, and to not obey congressional subpoenas. You're basically asking them to police themselves.
This is a whole other problem we'll get into on another show. I don't believe for a second that Attorney General Garland is going to investigate and charge his director of the FBI. That would be what should happen. I don't think that's going to happen, Jan.
How do you resolve this in a way where Congress gets what it's supposed to have under its constitutional authority? What you should do, and we did this once during Russiagate when we had 17 subpoenas out there for everything from DOJ, FBI, CIA and other agencies, is you do the one thing that these agencies and departments need to live—our money. They are funded by taxpayer dollars. Congress passes a budget every year to fund every facet of each and every agency and department. The FBI is no different.
Now, I'm not saying, and I've never said that we should defund the entire FBI. That is dangerous and that is rhetoric that can get us into a lot of trouble. It's where we are because people are calling for what I've referred to as an overcorrection, due to the past misconduct and unlawful activities of the FBI, which we've highlighted.
My suggestion is there's a fencing process on Capitol Hill. Without getting into all the details, you can just think of an imaginary fence that goes around a big pile of money and Congress has the lock and key. If the FBI wants their big pile of money within this fence, they have to comply with a request from Congress, i.e. give us the document unredacted so we can continue our investigation. That's the fencing process that is a little tricky with the budgeting minutiae and maneuvers you have to take.
Hopefully, Chairman Comer and company have set the groundwork to do that because it takes a little while. But you go out there and you just say, "Okay, the 40 new Escalades that you were getting, you're not getting those anymore," or "Your new government headquarters building that you wanted funded, that's on hold." You do clever and creative things like that.
You don't defund the everyday FBI agents doing their job chasing down criminals like the majority of them do. This is a leadership problem at the FBI. Let me be abundantly clear, I have never, nor will I ever attack the men and women who run the FBI every day on the ground like I did when I was there with them. They do the job.
Unfortunately, individuals like Chris Wray and his leadership team think that as the head of law enforcement in the United States of America, they don't have to obey the law. That's where we are here. This is a train hitting another train coming in the opposite direction head on. We'll see what happens.
Now, Congress also has a unique ability, and it hasn't been used in a few hundred years, if my history is correct. But if the DOJ won't act on contempt proceedings to charge Christopher Wray after the vote is done in the House, they can actually go and have the Sergeant at Arms arrest Christopher Wray.
That's a drastic measure. I don't think they'll do that, but there is an inherent contempt of Congress power. It’s almost built for the scenario we outlined earlier, where this DOJ is never going to police itself. It's up to Congress who has law enforcement capabilities to go out there, arrest Chris Wray, and hold him in contempt in a jail cell until the documents are produced. That's what would happen to any other individual who was held in contempt of Congress for failing to produce a document.
Jan, that's where we are, it's gotten to that head again. It also got there about five years ago. The ironic thing is that Chris Wray was head of the FBI when we were running our Russiagate investigation. We subpoenaed Chris Wray, he's not new to this. They obstructed back then. They blocked the Bruce Ohr 302s, they blocked the release of the FISA warrants, and they blocked the release of our 1023 showing Christopher Steele's corrupt FBI reporting and how the FBI was in on it.
He's not new to this game. He's very well-versed in it, and we were able to defeat him to a degree because we held certain pockets of money and got some of the documentation. Remember, we still never got it all. That's a story for another day. But in this instance, you're talking about one document. I'm guessing it's three to five pages long, maybe a little longer, but that's it. The FBI and Chris Wray have basically said, "Nope, you're not getting anything."
We will see if Congress has the gall and the audacity to take the steps that I've outlined here. In my opinion, that is the only way you can continue the investigation Chairman Comer's doing lawfully and provide the oversight to the American public to show the corruption at the FBI, DOJ, and the Biden family.
Mr. Jekielek: As you're describing this, I'm imagining this standoff between the Sergeant at Arms and some FBI people. It's just bizarre to even contemplate such a thing.
I want to switch gears. We do spend a lot of time criticizing the FBI and DOJ on this show. There's a recent case that has come to our attention, which seems to be the FBI and DOJ doing things exactly right. We've got two people linked directly to the Chinese communist regime attempting to bribe an FBI official posing as an IRS agent, basically targeting a Falun Gong-related nonprofit in New York. It's not the only case that the FBI is working on, but it's a big one.
Mr. Patel: Absolutely. This highlights what I said earlier. There's so much work that the DOJ and FBI need to do to safeguard our country to shut down criminals and crime syndicates and make sure our neighborhoods are safe for our children and our youth. This is just one example of how they do it every day. It's big for our Epoch audience, so I'm glad we're covering it.
I'll just run through it quickly and remind the audience this comes on the heels of another prosecution in recent history that the DOJ and FBI took on to take down the CCP operating police stations illegally in New York City. It's good that this line of work is continuing because it needs to. It's an example of why I still believe the FBI does good work every day. It's just the leadership that destroys it.
I'll just give us a quick summary of what the FBI and DOJ would've been working on, and it's a years long investigation, I'll get to why in a second. Two individuals with direct ties to the CCP actually went and conducted an operation on mainland soil in the United States of America. Of all things, I don't know if it's coincidental or not, but I guess the word is ironic. These guys filed a whistleblower complaint with the IRS.
What do I mean by that? Anybody can file a whistleblower complaint. You don't need to be in government to do so. You can be a private citizen or a CCP operative, as is the case here. They filed it with the New York office and they said specifically, we in this complaint are alleging that a 501(c)(3) aligned with the Falun Gong practitioners is committing a crime.
Now, if it was done truthfully and honestly, then that's a righteous whistleblower complaint and you'd want citizens informing the FBI and DOJ of this thing. What actually happened in this instance was it turned out that these CCP operatives had concocted a scheme in connection with mainland China and the government there to root out Falun Gong practitioners in the United States of America and retaliate against them as they've done so for the last 20-plus years. That is illegal. You cannot do that via a whistleblower complaint.
The FBI and the IRS and the DOJ initiated an investigation. They conducted a lot of surveillance, they followed these guys, and they set up a scheme that continued the bribery motives that these two CCP folks had. What they set out to do was after they filed a whistleblower complaint, they basically met what they thought were government officials and agents and sources.
Mr. Jekielek: IRS agents too, I might add. We've been talking a lot about the IRS here as well.
Mr. Patel: Right. They met what they thought were IRS agents because what they were telling these individuals who were actually working for the DOJ and FBI was, "Hey, these two CCP guys are offering us thousands of dollars if we take out the Falun Gong practitioners, because that's what we, the Chinese CCP government, wants us to do." They were literally doling out money. It's in the complaint in a great article that Epoch wrote if you wanted a play by play on it. But the reason I bring this up is because these types of investigations take years.
They also have audio surveillance of an individual from mainland China. These two individuals here, after they made the initial inquiries and filings with the IRS and FBI and DOJ, they engaged with the informants. This is the righteous use of informants, Jan, it's interesting that we're all talking about this in one episode.
Then, the two individuals flew back to CCP offices in China, got audio recordings of a CCP official, and then sent that back to the investigative team. Of course, they didn't know they were government officials and sources. There's recordings of it. It's interesting that the DOJ has not identified the senior level CCP official on those recordings from China.
As a former federal prosecutor I bring that up, because you can't just use that evidence at the drop of a hat. That information is acquired through sensitive collection, and it's classified. What that tells me is that the FBI and DOJ in this instance methodically played out a scenario where they were going to prosecute these individuals, and at the same time embarked upon the declassification process that takes months and months and months, because they knew they'd have to use that information, not in the charging document alone, but to present to a jury at trial.
They thought this thing through. That's why I highlight the fact that there's a great team out there doing great cases like this. These individuals have been arrested and charged in New York City and federal court, and they are being transported or on the way to the detention center in New York City. I don't believe they'll receive bond, if they haven't already.
They'll be denied bond because they're clearly a flight risk. But it's a great case, Jan. It's a great instance of the DOJ and FBI doing the work they should, handling fake whistleblowers the way they should be handled, and utilizing sources and informants the way they're supposed to. Maybe Chris Wray should take a play out of the agent's playbooks who ran this operation, because it was done lawfully.
Mr. Jekielek: Sometimes you hear that things take a lot of time because of government bureaucracy. Like you said, the declassification efforts can take months. But here, from the moment that this bribe was attempted to the purported IRS agent, actually the FBI agent, by one of these purported agents, a week later this complaint was filed and was made public from that last bribery attempt. It struck me that this is really fast.
Mr. Patel: Let me just give you the behind the curtains scenario. That doesn't mean they were able to do all that work in a week. What that tells me is they had preloaded all the work, the declassification, all the sourcing, and all the material they would need. Then, they waited until that last overt step needed to be taken in terms of them being charged with the allegations of bribery and corruption and fraud.
That was the overt act they were waiting for the final payment and the money exchange at JFK International. They had the complaint and the charging document in the pipeline the whole time. That's how it's done. But it shows you the government can move swiftly if they've operated a lawful prosecution.
Mr. Jekielek: This also highlights that the issue of focus is so important. We've talked about this in the past on the show. When you have the FBI focused on so-called domestic terrorism, which are moms and dads at school board meetings and with investigative resources being put towards that instead of these actual serious subversion scenarios, it shifts things in a direction we probably wouldn't want. There's probably a lot of really important proper investigations that the FBI is doing, and it's easy to forget about that because we're focused so much on the huge problems that we're seeing in the agencies.
Let's jump to this last thing. You have former FBI director Comey reacting to the findings of the Durham Report. With the Durham Report, we knew a lot of what was in there, but let's just say it doesn't look very good for former director Comey, it looks really bad. Now, he's weighing in. What is your reaction to that?
Mr. Patel: We should play the clip for our audience. Director Comey was on a nationally syndicated program just this past week commenting on the Durham Report. Let's play it.
James Comey: There's nothing new in that report about the FBI, no new facts. He's got his analysis and his take on things, but after all this time, there's nothing new. And so my reaction, honestly, is that it is an enormous waste of time and taxpayer money to give us a nothing burger.
Mr. Patel: This man is the biggest pathological liar to ever sit in the directorship of the FBI. I'm saying that on the heels of what we just talked about, Chris Wray's tenure. Just let this set in, Comey was the one who launched Russiagate, illegally. Comey was the one who unlawfully disclosed classified information while the FBI director, or shortly thereafter. Comey was the one who went to the FISA court and lied knowingly, just to surveil a political target.
Then, Comey was one of the many individuals who had said for the last five or six years that Donald Trump is a Russian asset, when he knew for a fact he wasn't. This man comes out on national TV, after the Durham Report excoriates his FBI and landed a devastating blow. That's not my verbiage, that's CNN saying this about the Durham Report on Comey's FBI.
Speaker 4: Devastating to the FBI. And to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump.
Mr. Patel: He has the audacity to come out and say, "I didn't see anything new. No big deal. Some small mistakes were made." That to me, sums up director Comey's entire career in about 10 seconds with his own words. That the mainstream media and that program that aired it allowed him to get away with it, shows you how much they were in on it with Director Comey back then.
Did he even bother to read the Durham Report, Jan? How can he say there was nothing new in there when the entire world is now pivoting to the Durham Report to say the FBI unlawfully surveilled President Trump? They never had a lawful justification for doing so. Director Comey was the one who specifically signed off on those warrants and that investigation.
John Durham just said, "No, you didn't have the legal justification for doing so." You can take the credibility of a guy who writes some preposterous book after he leaves the directorship at the FBI and Comey and just runs around on the media circuit, making money, making millions— or you can look at John Durham's work and our work during Russiagate. The unequivocal truth is that Director Comey illegally launched the biggest fraudulent investigation in U.S. history because he wanted to take out a political target.
Mr. Jekielek: Kash, I can't help but wonder what the historical record will ultimately show about what happened with Russiagate, the Durham investigation, and all these schemes. I really hope we can get full transparency.
Mr. Patel: Yes, I hope so too, Jan. It's going to take a lot of work from Congress and I think Chairman Comer and the like are on the right track. They just have to follow through now.
Mr. Jekielek: Kash, it's time for our shout-out.
Mr. Patel: Indeed, it is Jan. This week’s shout out goes to Sammy Wong. Thanks so much for your commentary on the Kash's Corner's chat board. We look at that board weekly and we appreciate your words, specifically about honesty and courageous reporting. It's what we try to do every week on Kash's Corner. Jan and I take a lot of time to deliver on that messaging and that theme. Thanks to everybody who commented on the board, and thanks to everybody who participated in the live chat. We'll see you next week for a special live presentation of Kash's Corner from Arizona.
Mr. Jekielek: Just a quick reminder that's going to be at 4:30 PM EST live. If you can put questions into the live chat, Kash and I will answer them. If you can't make it at 4:30 PM EST, we'll be able to do it as normal at 8:00 PM EST.
This interview was edited for clarity and brevity.

Popular