On this episode of Kash’s Corner, we discuss the Chinese fentanyl threat, Elon Musk offering to buy Twitter again at the original price, and allegations by former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski that the FBI buried evidence of Biden family wrongdoing.
“Call logs don’t lie. Text messages don’t lie. Photos don’t lie. Internet traffic data … it’s hard empirical data,” Patel says.
“The fact that [Bobulinski] laid out this amount of information, and the FBI has never talked to him since that interview, not one phone call, not one email … as a former national security prosecutor, to me, that is totally unacceptable,” Patel says.
* Click the "Save" button below the video to access it later on "My List."
BUY Jan 6 DVD: https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Kash” for 20% off.
Kash Patel:
Hey everybody and welcome back to Kash's Corner.
Jan Jekielek:
Well, Kash, I think we have to pick up where we left off last week, which is look at the border and especially the fentanyl flows. We're going to talk about that. And then there's this whole, let's call it the theme of disinformation. Okay? Number one, Elon Musk looks like he's going to buy Twitter in the end after all of the drama, right? Number two, we're going to look at Tony Bobulinsk. He's coming back into the limelight after about two years talking about some of the evidence that he's presented. Let's talk about that. And finally, there's this letter from the American Medical Association and two other organizations to basically the DOJ saying that the DOJ should prosecute people who are, I believe they're saying, touting disinformation against gender affirming care policies and so forth. So this is what we're going to look at today.
Mr. Patel:
Okay. That's a wide array of stuff, Jan, but I'm glad we kept our promise to our audience in Arizona when we're out there in the border state to talk about a massive national security issue, which is fentanyl. So as most of our audience knows, fentanyl in large part comes from China. And they sent it to the cartels and the cartels helped them ship it up into the United States. We'll get to that. What I was happy to see was a friend of mine on the hill, Dr. Brad Wenstrup, who's a congressman, who's also on House Intelligence Committee, challenge the Chinese on their fentanyl narrative because the fentanyl narrative from the CCP has been, we don't ship fentanyl anywhere. We're offended that you would say such a thing. And I'm paraphrasing from Dr. Wenstrup's public commentary on it. And he's like, "No, you send the precursors, the ingredients."
So China's basically saying, we don't send you the drug because we send it in three different pieces to the Mexican drug cartels. That's their out. And Dr. Wenstrup called them out on it and rightfully so. And I think that's a key piece of information that everybody's glossing over. The CCP has gone through the intellectual gymnastics to go out on the propaganda disinformation stage and say, "We don't ship fentanyl." Technically, that's true. They ship the ingredients. But they're in partnership with somebody in Mexico, the cartels, who put that stuff together. And then they send that stuff to the United States. Now, of course, the Chinese and the CCP are making money off the fentanyl precursors because it's not like they're sending it to Mexico for free. Those are being bought by the cartels.
Mr. Jekielek:
One thing that people don't grasp is that the CCP essentially can with a snap of the fingers stop that flow. Oh, because that's been another narrative from the CCP, oh, well, we can't control this. This is individuals selling, buying and selling privately these things.
Mr. Patel:
No, and just think about the end result, and we'll walk it back. The end result is the youth in our communities are being addicted and killed by Chinese fentanyl, and the Chinese government and the CCP could stop or curb that dramatically if they just chose to stop sending the precursors, making money off of it and causing American deaths. You would think this would be a headline issue in not just election matters, but every single newspaper would be reporting this every single day. Multiple people die of a fentanyl overdose every hour in the United States of America. That's tragic beyond comprehension. And it's finally, because unfortunately, because the numbers are so high in terms of death, it's impacting so many communities that people are starting to take notice of it.
Here's a couple of statistics on fentanyl that are kind of scary now. Used to be before the Biden administration, Chinese fentanyl, a tablet, they're usually in tablets, will cost about 20 bucks. They're $2 a piece now. Just think about that. That's part of the reason why it's an uptick in deaths related to fentanyl, because the price has been cut into 1/10th of what it used to be.
If that weren't bad enough, the drug traffickers, and with these precursors are getting creative, they're shaping Chinese fentanyl into a different delivery system, for lack of a better word. They're making them look like gummy bears, which is appealable, or which appeals, I should say, to younger people and children. And that's not good either. So they're not only continuing to supply the drug, they are changing its appearance and have manipulated its price for one purpose—to sell and make more money. Which leads to one result, more American deaths. And this is a direct result, not just of the CCP's action, but of our government under the Biden administration inaction at the border.
We've seen that the results are not just in the drug trafficking trade and the human trafficking trade and the child sex crimes, but so many other crimes, illegal immigrants coming over and then unfortunately some of them committing severe felonies such as murder and rape. These have all spiked under the Biden administration. And you could say what you want, I didn't like Trump or whatever. But you can't argue that the statistical empirical data that the crimes are up exponentially, Fentanyl deaths are up exponentially, drug overdose deaths are up exponentially. And that's a direct result of our failure of this administration at the border.
Mr. Jekielek:
And I want to comment a little bit because we've had analysts talking about Chinese Communist Party asymmetrical warfare practices. And one way to describe it is the opium wars in reverse. What is a very strong way to weaken a country? It's to have its young people dying from overdoses and being addicted to these drugs?
Mr. Patel:
No, you're absolutely right. And look, asymmetrical warfare is the term I'm very familiar with in my time at DOD and my time in the intel community. So it has a specific meaning to me, that's exactly what they're doing. They're running an intelligence based operation to effectuate an end result on a unilateral playing field. And fentanyl is that vehicle that they're using in this instance. And I hope our discussion here at least gets our audience to engage in their communities a little more, maybe engage their elected officials a little more and engage the media to say, "Why aren't you reporting every single overdose from Chinese fentanyl?"
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, and so I think this is the perfect time to start talking about disinformation directly.
Mr. Patel:
Can't get away from it.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, and so when I heard about Elon coming back and starting to say, "Okay, I'm going to buy Twitter in the end. Surprise." Now, what was really interesting to me is that the journalists, if you can call them that, on the so called disinformation beat in many traditional legacy media, I kind of imagine them as being narrative reinforcement mechanisms. They're going crazy about it. They really don't like the idea of Elon buying Twitter at all.
Mr. Patel:
Well, I think it's a little bit of poetic justice in terms of who is buying. Elon buying Twitter to them is not quite as bad as Trump buying it, but it's up there in that orbit. For whatever reason, because Elon Musk came out over the last year and basically shunned the Democrats for their disinformation campaigns and things like that, they resoundingly, the radical left and the fake news mafia rejected Elon in full course. And so did the people at Twitter, essentially. The people that worked there, the people in leadership positions, and ultimately the movement within Twitter has been reported to reject Elon's offer.
But fast forward. Elon's a businessman. He goes out there and makes money. And my problem with his reversal here is it shows Elon's hypocrisy. It shows that even though he went in and took these matters to court for reasons we talked about previously, but mainly to show the amount of bots that were on Twitter, were falsely put out by Twitter in the terms of this negotiation with Elon per Elon's own statements on it.
And I've known about the bots from our time doing the Russiagate investigation, and we finally broke through that Twitter is full of lots of bots. And that was one of the main reasons for the cases over in the Delaware Chancery, where suits of this type are handled. And that was one of the main decision points that Elon was going to have to argue to the judge there for them to get a favorable ruling. But it seems like, and I haven't heard, maybe I haven't seen it, but there is no ruling on the matter. It just seems like all of a sudden Elon's come out and said, "Actually, I'm just going to go buy Twitter for my original bid price," which was a little shocking to me, because I thought he would either buy it at a really reduced rate or not buy it at all.
But at the end of the day, I spent some time thinking about it, and it's money. Even if you're worth $250 billion and you buy a $50 billion company, that's a fifth of your wealth, especially if you need to use liquid capital, which you do in these deals, to buy a large portion of it. So I think he realized that his payment penalty, if he withdrew, was going to be huge, $1 billion in cash. I think he realized that he wants to continue building the Elon behemoth. And he put out a statement, but it basically says all roads lead to the one app for everything, the X app. Cute from SpaceX founder. I'm not really sure what he means by the one app for everything.
Mr. Jekielek:
It makes me think of the one ring.
Mr. Patel:
But yes, I haven't watched the Lord of the Rings series.
Mr. Jekielek:
Doesn't bode well.
Mr. Patel:
Yeah, right. And that's the other thing. This guy's already got Starlink, so he is providing internet to the world. He's already got Tesla, he's already got the SpaceX program and the government DOD contracts, which I believe to be the largest portion of his income. And now he'll have Twitter. So what scares me is, you want to talk about a monopoly, he is the ultimate monopoly. Is he going to execute the businesses and allow others to compete, a free speech platforms, that is? Is he just going to buy everything up and then become one ginormous trust, for lack of a better word, a monopoly, which is supposedly illegal under our law, under antitrust laws. And then what's he going to do with all the data?
That's my concern. The data collection. He's got a global wifi satellite system in space for the world—Starlink. He has Tesla, he has, as I said, the SpaceX program, and now he'll have Twitter. What do you do with everyone's personal information? Do you allow the CCP to have back doors like other companies like TikTok have done in the past and sell Americans' data or provide Americans' data directly to the CCP for future use against Americans and American interest?
Those are questions that people should be asking, I think, rather than fixating on the ups or downs of Elon buying Twitter. And I think also the other thing that people should put forward is questioning the magnitude and levels of contracts he's receiving from the Defense Department. Look, me as a former chief of staff at the Department of Defense authorized a lot of the spending that went to SpaceX. Budgeted for it, went to Congress, got it. And I'm not saying we shouldn't have those programs.
A lot of those programs are very successful programs. But if your largest portion of income in terms of liquid capital comes from the United States government, which is taxpayer funded, then questions need to be asked when you're buying another behemoth. Do you have the liquid capital to do so? Or are you going into a leveraged buyout? And those matters relate directly to your credibility to do the work on what I think is the most important thing is national security.
So SpaceX is a national security mission for the United States and the Department of Defense. Is it going to remain a priority for Musk to do so? How are all these going to intertwine? I think Congress is going to have a lot of oversight to do. We haven't even talked about, is he going to allow Twitter to actually finally become a free speech platform free of censorship?
Mr. Jekielek:
I think Elon could do something quite amazing, and I think he may even do it. I think he should just impose radical transparency. Show the algorithm, expose everything that's been censored, explain why some of it, the public may decide, okay, this is fine, just put it all out very plainly on the table. And then people can look at the past, people can study it, people can debate it, and then move forward with some sort of principled approach. Because obviously moderation is required. It's not going to be a free for all.
Mr. Patel:
Sure.
Mr. Jekielek:
Yes.
Mr. Patel:
I think I have never heard anyone say that. And actually that's a pretty novel idea and a great one. And I'll probably steal it from you now. But no, in all seriousness, why not go out there and say, these are all the bots. We're getting rid of them, but this is how many we've had. This is how many we've had in the last five years. Collectively, this is how many we've had year over year. This is how much infiltration we've had from bad actors in China and Russia. We're shutting that stuff down. And this is the new programs and people we're bringing in to counteract all that. And also, this is how we're going to be a free speech platform. But as you said, and I agree with you, fundamentally a free speech platform cannot be something that allows criminal activity to occur. So there must be that sort of regulation in there.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, so here we are. I'm very curious how this will play out. I'm kind of excited. Well, and this is the big question, is Kash Patel going to get a Twitter account if this goes through?
Mr. Patel:
Nope. Not ever. Truth Social all the way.
Mr. Jekielek:
Okay, well we'll talk about it sometime in the future maybe when you get that Twitter account, but we'll see. Well, no. Okay, let's jump. You did mention that Hunter Biden laptop. Of course, that was a major piece of Twitter censorship. We have Tony Bobulinski back in the limelight talking once again with Tucker Carlson, long exclusive interview. There's some incredible revelations in there. Just the one piece that I can't wrap my mind around is he says he's in an interview with the FBI and presumably the notes on this are recorded somewhere. And Jim Biden calls him during the interview? That's an unbelievable coincidence.
Mr. Patel:
Yes.
Mr. Jekielek:
Yesh.
Mr. Patel:
Joe Biden's brother, Jim. Let's rewind the clock. So the interview you're talking about is that the time that Tony Bobulinski went and sat down with multiple agents at the FBI after basically begging to meet with them to show them this information that he had, evidence that he had. And halfway through it, Jim Biden, the president's brother calls? I didn't know that. I found that shocking. Is that a coincidence? Tony Bobulinski seems to think not. The fact that he laid out this amount of information and the FBI has never talked to him since that interview. Not one phone call, not one email, not an interaction with his lawyers or his team. Nobody. Nothing. And it's been over two plus years since I think what we're talking about here in terms of a timeframe. As a former national security prosecutor, to me that is totally unacceptable.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, and who was the agent that was handling his case?
Mr. Patel:
Thibault .And we've done a show on him because of his unlawful, I believe, conduct and improper unethical behavior. He was caught as the lead agent for the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, if that's the name we want to give it, falsely labeling the information from the laptop as Russian disinformation. The story that the mainstream media went with, the disinformation campaign that was championed by the 51 former intelligence officials: Pineda, former Sec Def, Hayden, former CIA director and former NSA director, and so many others.
Mr. Jekielek:
Five separate former CIA directors, actually, it's just kind of amazing.
Mr. Patel:
It's astounding that these guys, these career intel people, would come out and believe that, because, we could talk about that later, but they knew they were perpetuating a fraud. Hayden has since come out recently and said he was glad to have helped defeat Donald Trump, even though the information he was pushing in that letter was false. That's a former CIA and NSA director saying that. And this was all permitted basically by Thibault's activity at the FBI labeling it as such because he was so politically motivated against Donald Trump that he wanted to make sure he basically nuked that story so that it would not change the outcome of the election and give a result he did not want, which was President Trump being reelected.
This is the Thibault we're talking about. And even though in the Bobulinski interview, it's interesting, he was asked about Thibault in interactions. He said, I believe he, Bobulinski, never actually met with Thibault. There was like four or five agents that day who did a multi hour interview with him where he showed them the documentation and the evidence he was talking about, and they informed him that Thibault would be the lead on this matter and that Thibault would be getting in touch with him and his lawyers. But he did say, he, Bobulinski, said that Thibault has never called him or never contacted him. Nobody at the FBI has, which is shocking.
Mr. Jekielek:
Bobulinski had such a plethora of various evidence. He had kind of voice recordings of his discussions with the Biden family. He had these contracts to the ECFC, the Chinese company. We have wire transfers. There's many, many pieces of evidence. So maybe from the evidentiary gathering perspective, what should the FBI have been doing in your mind at this point?
Mr. Patel:
And there were three cell phones.
Mr. Jekielek:
Three cell phones.
Mr. Patel:
And now we know how cell phones can be exploited for data and what's in them. The FBI should, number one, he was voluntarily giving the FBI this information. What the FBI should be doing in intelligence speak in an evidentiary collection standpoint is exploiting or pulling the data off of the three cell phones. For example, I, as a former national security prosecutor and intel guy will tell you that's step one. That's hard data. Call logs don't lie. Text messages don't lie. Photos don't lie. Internet traffic data. It's hard, empirical data.
Mr. Jekielek:
And follow the money, as you always say.
Mr. Patel:
And as I'm always saying, follow the money. And I think that's what Tony Bobulinski, I've never spoken to him, I don't know him, was saying. He said, I have the contracts showing the engagement between the Biden family and these corrupt Chinese actors. Then I have the wire transfers from the bank accounts showing money moving from a CCP oriented entity to the Biden family, whether it's Jim or the son Hunter or who have you. This is hard data. This is incontrovertible evidence from a prosecutorial standpoint. It's like our dream. Because money never lies. Bank accounts don't lie unless you have a corrupt banker. But that's not the case here. And, you have phone data, you have contractual data, you have things that jurors can see and hold. Then you have voice recordings, and the famous one that we can play for the audience is.
Joe Biden:
Nothing urgent. Just wanted talk to you. I thought the article, at least the thing online that is going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. And you can clear.
Mr. Patel:
Joe Biden calling his son Hunter after one of these high level meetings with Chinese officials about the investigation around him saying, I think you're in the clear. I think it's okay. Wwe talked about the shoe was on the other foot thing last week when we were in Arizona, right? Just think about this. And I put up a truth to this effect. What if Tony Bobulinski had information to this effect on Donald Trump and one of his sons? Cell phones, bank records, money movement, voice recordings, and contractual data. Would we be having the same conversation right now?
Mr. Jekielek:
You and I both know, and everybody watching this knows, that the scenario that's conjured up in our minds is so extreme, it's almost hard to believe.
Mr. Patel:
It is. And it's always worth, I think, pointing out because it helps our newer audience sort of put this into perspective. So we can take it and just tell them, hey, apply this in an unbiased way. Look at it from the context of if you change the target. And it shouldn't change. But the FBI, as far as I can tell, hasn't exploited the phones, didn't look at the bank accounts, didn't do anything with the contracts. Could have interviewed Hunter Biden, maybe they've done that. I don't know. There is an ongoing grand jury in Delaware. But we did find out Tony Bobulinski has not been to that grand jury. So not only has the FBI never spoken to him or the Department of Justice since that interviewer communicated with him, but they haven't even bothered to put the main witness in the grand jury that is investigating Hunter Biden's corrupt activities overseas.
The pay for play, as we call it. And that's not even to talk about what other possible crimes that are on there when we've seen these horrendous, horrific photos of underage people that are on that laptop, which is in the very least disturbing. So, what I would've done as a prosecutor? Issued grand jury subpoenas, formally gotten the bank records, issued search warrants for the cell phones, issued any other search warrant or what we call grand jury search warrant or subpoena, I should say, to collect information related to this investigation. And then I would let the FBI do its job. Exploit that information, see what is what, and then work with the prosecutor to make a charging decision. But you can't do any of that if the FBI never calls the number one witness to the alleged crime, which seems to be the case that we've now learned from the Tony Bobulinski interview.
And what I found interesting was he flat out came out and said in the interview with Tucker, he goes, "I'll go on any show anytime, starting right now. I'll go on Jake Tapper," he said tomorrow. "And I'll have them debate me on the merits of my information on the data I've collected." Because what his stress point was, look at the data, look at the information. He is saying, it's not wrong, but he's also saying, I've had it for two years or however long he's had it. You can test it. I'll go on your show on national TV and you can call me out if you think something is wrong. That's how much he thinks and believes that his information is accurate. And as we alluded to earlier, that type of data isn't witness testimony. A bank record says money moved from A to B.
A contract says, I hired A and B to conduct X. A voice recording of the conversation talking about a pay for play or an illegal transaction between China and the CCP related parties and a Biden family member is just that. It's not information that can be diluted in any way. And that's why it's so disturbing for me. It's not a he said, she said case built on hearsay without a videotape or without paperwork or without a trail of money to follow. It's how we broke Russiagate, right? And we've talked about that before, but I think that's ultimately how this matter will resolve in Hunter Biden's charging at the federal level. Not anytime soon, but I believe it's coming.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, and of course President Biden has denied that he was involved in any of this.
Speaker 4:
And Vice President Biden, there have been questions about the work your son has done in China and for a Ukrainian energy company when you were vice president. In retrospect, was anything about those relationships inappropriate or unethical?
Joe Biden:
Nothing was unethical. Here's what the deal. I carried out U.S. policy. Not one single solitary thing was out of line, not a single thing. My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about? China? I have not had, the only guy made money from China is this guy. He's the only one. Nobody else has made money from China.
Mr. Patel:
That's a great point, Jan. He has flat out, he, Joe Biden has said as president, I have nothing to do with any of my son's China stuff, for lack of a better phraseology. The proof that Tony Bobulinski has put forward to the FBI for years now directly contradicts that in Joe Biden's own voice. That's hard evidence. And Tony Bobulinski's point, and I was trying to scrutinize him where possible, but his main point was, Tucker asked him a great question, why now? Why are you coming back two years later? Again, it's the election. He goes, the American people have a right to know the information, and then make their own decision when it comes to an election. We've covered how the Hunter Biden laptop disinformation story changed thousands of votes in an election that was decided in three states by thousands of votes.
Mr. Jekielek:
Most likely. We don't know exactly right. But a guess.
Mr. Patel:
Yes. And that was Tony Bobulinski's point yesterday. He said the election, the presidential election between Trump and Biden, was such a small window in terms of the three states that ended up deciding the electoral college and the amount of votes in those three states that separated the two candidates. He was personally offended that his information didn't get out there for people to see. And what we've seen in the two year since is that many people have said, had I known what was actually true, not falsely reported by the 51 former intel people and the fake news mafia, they would've voted differently. And that's why he says he's coming out now right before the midterms or three, four weeks before the midterms, because he is trying again to get that information out there. And look, this is a tread I know how to personally dig.
I've had to do it with Russiagate. I get it. When we first broke the news of the Hillary Clinton campaign paying for the Steele dossier and et cetera, and starting the Russiagate narrative, it was impossible to break through in the mainstream media because they didn't want to believe it. Just like this story is impossible to break through in mainstream media because they don't want it to come out. The truth, that is, they don't want that to come out because it will sway the election in a way that is unfavorable to them. And so what I think Tony's doing is something I can relate to is he just continues to hammer. And get on a platform, such as Tucker Carlson, which is a pretty big massive audience, and then have print media follow up and offer himself, and his information more importantly. He's not just saying, let me sit down for an interview.
This is unique. This is a kind of rarity when it comes to media style interviews. He's saying, I'll give you the interviewer everything I have and then you can interview me on it. That's pretty impressive, Jan. So I think the story is finally breaking through from all the reporting we and everybody has done on just the Hunter Biden laptop and how they conducted that disinformation campaign to falsely inform an American public and the world. That has ticked off enough Americans where I think his interview from last night is going to resonate heavily during these midterms.
And I will say this, the DOJ and FBI ignore almost everything. The one thing in my experience as a national security prosecutor at DOJ that they can ignore is an overriding public sentiment that they are failing the American people. And I think we have mounted a very evidence-based campaign on how the DOJ and FBI continue to put on this two-tier system of justice and treat certain individuals with the last name differently than they would others. And that is the ultimate thing that I think is going to pierce through and force the matter to be addressed, on everything from whistleblowers and the two tier system of justice to Hunter Biden's laptop.
Mr. Jekielek:
And I just want to highlight something because there's a lot of people out there right now calling for the dismantling of the FBI, for example, because of all this evidence that we've seen come out. In your case, you're basically saying, look at all this evidence that you really need to change and you better get on it. Or otherwise, who knows what will happen.
Mr. Patel:
Yes, look, I've said it before on our show, and I'll say it again, and it might not be the popular position, but that's never really mattered to me. You cannot completely do away with the FBI and DOJ. They do serve a purpose. They do need a huge overhaul, both agencies and departments. And that starts with personnel, changing procedures, and getting people to be apolitical and follow the law. That is a massive undertaking. I will admit that. But if we don't have those agencies, then who's going to prosecute the murderers, who's going to go after the bank robbers, who's going to go after the drug traffickers that kill our children? Things like that have to be thought through. And having done those cases and having worked on those matters, maybe I'm a little biased in ways that other Americans aren't, but that's how I feel.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, so I want to hear your take on this. This is just to our third topic, which is the American Medical Association, two other major associations, that say they represent about 270,000 physicians across the nation. Not necessarily directly represent obviously, but they're basically, they've sent out a letter to the DOJ to Merrick Garland. They're unhappy with a lot of criticism that's being put upon them by different organizations and individuals, in many cases, parents for their activities around this topic of gender affirming care, as it's euphemistically called. And it actually reminds me a lot of the teacher's union letter to the DOJ basically saying, these parents that are criticizing us are kind of domestic terrorists or something like this. What can or should the DOJ do in situations like this where they get a letter like this, there's allegations of extreme behavior, and it's around a highly contentious topic that for a lot of people makes sense for them to be very animated about?
Mr. Patel:
Sure. And your analogy to the treatment by the teachers unions and people who were lobbying DOJ to take on those folks that showed up at school board meetings to change the education system or keep it in a way that conforms with their belief systems, that's a great way to look at it. I'm not a subject matter expert on this stuff from a DOJ perspective. Yeah, anyone's free to write DOJ a letter. That should never, ever stop. If you have an issue and you think you can write the Attorney General, you should. If you got a group and you think you need to write the FBI director, do it. All day long. DOJ's responsibility is to receive those letters and remember that they are law enforcement administration. Their job is to evaluate, is there criminal activity afoot? Is there evidence of possible crimes? And the most important question they have to answer is, are we doing this, not for purposes of the law, but for purposes of satisfying a political base? And if the answer to that is yes, then your inquiry is over.
And what I think is happening with these groups and others is they are lobbying a politicized DOJ and FBI, which we have talked about extensively, to further politicize them because they've seen places where this DOJ and FBI will go after political targets and put the law second. And in my opinion, that should never happen at the Department of Justice or at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But Americans have seen it happen, unfortunately, time and again with the two tier system of justice that they have created in modern day America.
Mr. Jekielek:
All right, Kash, I think that's it for this week. It's time for our shout out.
Mr. Patel:
This week's shout out goes to Nathan Sims. Thanks so much for posting your comments on Kash's Corner's Board. We appreciate that you watched last week's episode twice and encourage everybody else to do the same. And we hope to see you next week on Kash's Corner.
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
