In this episode of Kash’s Corner, Kash Patel addresses the Iranian fatwa on Salman Rushdie, possible U.S. reentry into the nuclear deal, and recent developments surrounding the Mar-a-Lago raid.
“There is no way on planet Earth that the Department of Justice did not tell the White House Counsel's Office of this raid,” claims Kash.
Kash Patel discusses details that have been omitted from media coverage of the raid and demands the release of concealed documents relating to Mar-a-Lago and Russiagate. He also explains how Congress can compel intelligence agencies to hand over unreleased documents.
"When you call the DOJ and FBI and you place a hold ... on the distribution of taxpayer dollars to fund those agencies, they will overnight provide you with thousands of documents.”
Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.
* Click the "Save" button below the video to access it later on "My List."
Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Kash's Corner. Jan, what are we going to dive into this week?
Well, we definitely have to talk a little bit more about this whole Trump raid, Mar-a-Lago. But before we get there, hot off the presses, Israel and Turkey seem to have reestablished diplomatic relations, which is fascinating and perhaps unexpected. We're also going to look a little bit into CDC guidelines, and frankly this decades old fatwa that was almost enacted. Salman Rushdie almost lost his life.
Okay. We got a lot to jam in, in this episode, so let's get cranking.
Apparently, Israel and Turkey now have exchanged ambassadors again and are basically reestablishing good diplomatic relations, a kind of unexpected moment.
That's always a good thing. You need diplomatic relations with America's adversaries and allies, so you can engage in places where America can't reach. President Trump and Jared Kushner made these peace negotiations, the ongoing effort to secure those types of deals and relationships. And the first step is you need an ambassador in each respective country, so you can have an exchange of not just personnel, but information between your two governments. So it's good, and it's good for America because America has a great relationship with Israel, and we have a good relationship at times with Turkey. But there's a lot of intelligence matters, national security matters that come out of Turkey that we need assistance with. And the Israelis are one of our premier partners in that realm, so we'll see how that goes.
The other thing that kind of stunned me, and we haven't had a chance to talk about this yet, is that this fatwa on Salman Rushdie that's been around for decades was finally enacted, not where I would ... In the United States of America. Kind of unbelievable, and it was touch and go for a while. It looks like he's going to live. But what's your take on this?
Yes. So, for our readers real quick, a fatwa is basically a death order that says, "Search this person out and remove them from planet Earth." And Salman Rushdie has been a prolific writer and author for a long time. And he's put out books that the Iranian regime, specifically the Ayatollah disliked and disapproved of. So they deemed him to be such a great threat to the Iranian regime that they literally placed him on a kill list. But that happened I think 30 years ago. Just think about that. Iran has had this person on a kill list for three decades. And from public reporting, we now know this individual charged with the attack on Salman Rushdie that nearly killed him, is praising the Ayatollah publicly, or at least from his jail cell. And I don't think that's a small coincidence. I know how the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps force works. I know how their intelligence apparatus works. These people have unfortunately a very robust intelligence and special forces program. Their number one enemy is the United States.
That makes me think of these assassination plots that I just became aware of, basically against former Secretary Pompeo and former National Security Advisor Bolton. Iran doesn't seem to be changing with these new negotiations for the updated Iran deal.
No. And look, in my role in the Trump administration at some senior-most levels of both intel and DOD, we are always on guard and focusing on what our adversaries are doing against us—especially threats to physical life. Sometimes that includes people who serve in high positions in government. I can't get into what happened when I was in the administration, or what happened since I left, but it has been publicly reported, what you said. And that's entirely unacceptable, whoever it is, to have American citizens be on sort of this “kill list,” from the Iranian regime. And the thing that Americans should realize is they'll go to the ends of the Earth and take decades to execute that order.
Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. From a counterterrorism standpoint, Iran is the number one adversary in that space of terrorist acts based on their Quds Force [and] based on the Ayatollah's actions.
So what does that say about the Iran deal, then?
That's what's most disturbing to me because any sort of reentry into the Iran deal in piecemeal or in whole is disastrous foreign policy from a United States perspective in my opinion. As we've outlined, they hate us. They want us dead. They will go to the ends of the Earth to kill us. They are continuing their attacks on American military overseas, American personnel and American interests overseas. They are continuing their attacks on our number one ally, Israel, through Shiite militia groups and the like.
So for us to go back into the JCPOA or whatever you want to call it and pay Iran billions of dollars again, and allow them access to the international banking system, so that their currency can rebound and the Ayatollah can use it to buy more weapons to harm Americans and American interests, I think is a complete failure of United States foreign policy. And I think that's why President Trump took a hard line against it and got us out of it. And it goes to show what I've been saying all along with you, Jan. It's the continued politicization of the national security apparatus. It's not the right move to be like, "What did President Trump do with Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, China?" He did X, we're going to do the opposite. We're going to do Y, which is tragic for American security interests. But it seems to play out continuously from the Biden administration that all they care about is the next headline in the mainstream media to say, "Trump did X, we're doing Y. It's better."
That's just not the case. It might be the case in some situations, but it's most definitely not with Iran. We saw what they did under the Obama administration by entering into the JCPOA and getting access to billions of dollars. The international banking system allowed American dollars to be utilized against American soldiers. And if that isn't a wake up call enough for this administration, then it proves my point. They don't care.
They want the headline that says, "We have come to terms with the largest state sponsor of terrorism that we are going to work with them." And let's not forget the main thing. The whole purpose is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That's the whole deal. We can't have the Ayatollah having a nuclear weapon. And now we've seen public reporting since the Biden administration's taken place that they are close, if not already there, in terms of producing weapons grade nuclear material, which is a whole nother problem.
And they haven't had access to the United Nations and other international agencies to go in there and survey their nuclear programs. And now we want to give them a reward for that and a reward for the attacks on Salman Rushdie, and a reward for the kill orders on senior government officials or former senior government officials. There's no logic in doing that.
The other thing that I can't help remembering is that Russia has been kind of the mediator in this negotiation. Right? And so I don't know. Is that still the case? And how is that possible?
I'm not in government anymore. It was true that Russia was a negotiator there, which is another example of the politicization of the national security apparatus. Russia invaded Ukraine. That's not a friendly move. That's an act of war. That harms American interests and global interests. Now you're allowing this adversary of America, Russia and Putin, to team up with Iran and the Ayatollah. And when we give them money, who do you think the Iranians are going to turn to for weapons, for supplies, for training? We're literally going to pay the Russians money to help the Iranians become a stronger military, have a better special forces operation, target Americans, and get a nuclear weapon. This is disastrous on every level. But the media seems to want to cover continuously for anything the Biden administration does, even if it is a total failure like Afghanistan.
Kash, before we jump into looking at the whole Mar-a-Lago situation, I just wanted to mention one headline that's sort of been more my wheelhouse. The CDC has changed its guidelines. And in some ways, if there wasn't all this craziness happening all at once, this might be the, should be the biggest headline in front of everybody. Essentially, all the policy that we've had up until now has basically been trying to get people vaccinated. The new guidelines admit finally that natural immunity exists, that it's a real thing, that it's not a conspiracy theory, and that there's no reason to treat people differently based on their vaccination status.
So that's kind of what Epoch Times has been saying for years.
Well, the thing that I would hope to see, and maybe this is sort of my plea, in a sense. Right? There's been a lot of division sewn with this idea of unvaccinated and vaccinated people. People literally dis-invited their families from Christmas because they were unvaccinated. All sorts of really crazy things happened that made certainly no scientific sense, but I would argue a lot of [it] highly problematic ethically. So this is an opportunity for a huge campaign to make sure everyone knows that this sort of vaccine status is a nonissue. That mandates make no sense whatsoever. And we can move on from that, yes, and have appropriate accountability. So I'm going to throw that out there here on Kash's Corner while we're chatting.
Kash, let's talk about Mar-a-Lago. One question I had is, you of course have been involved, and you're a representative for the National Archives for President Trump. And at the same time, I'm curious, have the FBI come to you about anything? Because these archives are the centerpiece ostensibly for this whole issue.
No, they have not. I don't think they should unless they want to make me a political target, which who knows, maybe they will. But hopefully not; that's not the FBI I knew. But I was named a representative by President Trump. That just means I was the one who was trying to go to the archives, and I still haven't physically been there because they haven't allowed me to visit, to get the declassified documents out to the American people. They've engaged in bureaucratic gymnastics to slow, delay and derail these efforts. And the frustrating part is the documents were declassified. And now they're saying, "Well, they're going to do a declassification process."
I was like, "What process?" The president of the United States, who has unilateral declassification authority, declassified them. That's it. If you want to do the paperwork trail behind it and catch up for your paperwork, that's fine. But that's not a reason to block the dissemination of declassified records. And that's the crux of the matter. How that intertwines with Mar-a-Lago is a little bit separate of an issue in terms of ... I wasn't at Mar-a-Lago. I didn't know the boxes were there until the world found out the boxes were there after the raid. It just wasn't something I was a part of.
And so the mainstream media has lost it. They've pelted me with questions about: Did you pack X? And did you move Y? And what's in there? And have you been down there? I was like, "No, I haven't been to Mar-a-Lago in months. And I know nothing about the FBI raid." I'm learning it with the American public. Now I do know how those search warrants and things are executed and we detailed that in last week's episode. And there's some events coming up in court this week that I'm sure our audience is going to be very interested in, but I think they're going to be sadly disappointed at the result of this magistrate judge's rulings.
So I saw at least one legacy media headline kind of wondering why President Trump would've made you, and I think it was also John Solomon, a representative at the National Archives. And I was kind of looking at it. It struck me as kind of incredibly obvious because you actually understand those documents, some of the few people that understand probably a lot of what's in them, where to look, where to point it, what things are significant in there. But somehow that seemed to be lost on the author's of this article.
No, it's the same. You're too kind. You call them legacy media. I call them the fake news mafia. These people were wrong about Russiagate, they didn't want those documents out because they knew it exposed government corruption that they participated in. And as Devin and I have always said, we only got out 60 percent of the Russiagate docs. We're not even talking about the Hillary Clinton email investigation documents that haven't been released. So 40 percent of that's left, and there's a whole host of other documents that President Trump declassified on the way out of the White House.
So it's no surprise that these people in the media come in to try to obstruct and block and prop up the FBI and DOJ falsely. And I think you'll see Jim Jordan did a magnificent job this week of issuing a bunch of letters to the attorney general and the director of the FBI, basically preservation requests foreshadowing what's coming because if the midterms go the way they're expected, then Jim Jordan will be the chairman of the judiciary committee, with direct oversight of FBI and DOJ subpoena power. And he's put them on notice. Save every single document in relation, not just to the underlying documents in question, but how you've been communicating with the FBI and the press and the DOJ about the documents. And if you don't, there's going to be a price to pay when I am the chairman.
And I'm paraphrasing here, so I'm not going to speak for Representative Jordan, but I think he's going to come in pretty swiftly with subpoenas to get the documents, and then to put those two individuals, Wray and Garland, in front of the American public and testify. Why haven't you released this? And what you're going to find out, and I think we'll cover this in an episode of Kash's Corner in the winter, just like Russiagate, the corrupt FBI agents and DOJ lawyers acted unethically, unlawfully, and in violation of their oaths in relation to not just the declassification issues, but also the Mar-a-Lago raid. And until and unless those documents are released to the American public, we're not going to know.
Devin and I had experience with that. We had to issue 17 subpoenas. We had to withstand not just scrutiny from DOJ, but threats from Rod Rosenstein to investigate us because we were exposing FBI corruption. And the moniker back then was you're going to destroy foreign relationships. People are going to die. No one died. No relationship ended. We just exposed the corruption that was directly tied to the Democratic party. And I think you're going to see that again because the same agents, not all of them, but the same agents involved in Russiagate, in the Hillary email investigation, and some of the John Durham stuff are now involved in this raid on Mar-a-Lago. It's the same counterintelligence crew that sort of conjured up the Russiagate hoax. So there needs to be some serious accountability, and also a disclosure to the public of these records.
I have to ask this question because you're just describing a very realistic scenario for Congressman Jordan, should the gavel change hands, so to speak? And so one of the things, I recently interviewed Victor Davis Hanson on American Thought Leaders. And one of the things we were discussing was how Republicans will behave in the coming in, should the gavel change hands. Would it be a situation where the Republicans say, "Okay, we're going to have to do in kind in the opposite direction"? Or will it be a fair and honest basically appraisal of reality? How do you see this happening?
I think with leaders like Congressman Jordan and the other folks that are going to be on some of these committees leading these efforts, having worked with them and for them in a variety of capacities on Capitol Hill, I've never known them to use Congressional investigative powers to politicize and advance a false narrative. They've always been the guys putting out the truth. They've taken a lot of flack for it, so did we. And they're going to take more flack as you alluded, once the gavels change because the mainstream media is going to come after them.
But the difference between what the Democrats and the mainstream media have done and what we did in Russiagate, and what I believe these folks are going to do when the gavels change is we put out the incontrovertible facts, the documents from the FBI and DOJ themselves that show their corruption, that show they doctored documents, that showed that they lied to the federal courts, that show that they goosed through specialty warrants to surveil presidential candidates unlawfully, that show that they took money from political aligned associates to do their dirty work and then funneled that into the law enforcement and intelligence community to advance and target political opposition.
That's just the thing that they have done, the radical left and the mainstream media mafia. It's never the thing that the folks we've been talking about on the Republican side have done. And I challenge anyone to put out a narrative that shows otherwise. But here's what I will say, they set the rules. This Democratic majority in Congress set the rules. You can now subpoena members of Congress. You can subpoena their records, their phone calls, their computers. You can now subpoena basically instead of writing letters, anything you want from any agency in government. So they set the rules. We are going to do to them what they've done to us. The difference is they did it for political advancement and we are going to do it for oversight. America needs to relearn what Constitutional Congressional oversight actually means.
It serves a legitimate purpose. They are not the executive branch. They are the legislative branch. And the best way to get documents, and I learned this from Russiagate, was not just issuing subpoenas and demanding the cabinet officers come in and testify publicly. They won't comply. That's my prediction. They literally will throw up bureaucratic gymnastics and say, "Oh, we're looking for it." And then it has to be redacted. Then there's personal information. Just go to the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages that Rick Grenell and I were able to declassify and un-redact. There's no reason to classify them. It just showed the corruption of their actions, and they never wanted it out. We put it out. That's the difference.
And how do you force those documents and relevant information out? Congress has the ultimate ace in the hole. You fence their money. It's pretty simple. You'd be amazed when you call the DOJ and FBI and you place a hold, that's what a fence is, on the distribution of taxpayer dollars to fund those agencies. They will overnight provide you with thousands of documents. And that's my advice to the incoming Republican leadership in Congress. You hold the purse. You decide what money goes where. And just because you've allocated money to this agency and that agency, it's not like you send them a full year's check overnight. It comes in disbursements pursuant to the acts that authorize the funding, the NDA, the IAA, and things like that. And you can call up the AG, and you can call up the director of the FBI and say, "You're not getting that 150 million until you respond to this subpoena."
When we did it, we got documents the next day. And they were some of the most explosive documents I remember, including the Bruce Ohr stuff, the Christoper Steel sourcing documents, and everything that showed the lies and corruption. And they can do that, and they must, must, must, do that. I haven't really talked about that mechanism anywhere else. And a lot of people don't know about it and think, "Oh, they passed the budget. They get all the money." That's not how it works.
Fascinating. To your point about the new rules, one of the rules was obviously with this Jan. 6th committee, basically denying membership to the other party, to anyone that isn't politically aligned with you, for example. Right? And so that's a big difference.
Well, the other one, taking that one step further is they kicked people off of committees. They, the Democratic leadership, kicked Republicans off committees. And we need to do that to them. They did it for political purposes. We need to do it for accountability and security purposes. And the first two people on that list are Adam Schiff and Swalwell, who are actual national security threats to the United States of America for their careless leaking of classified information continuously over their years and their engagement with foreign adversaries directly to compromise American national security interests. They should be on zero committees going forward in Congress when we flip the calendar.
Big statement. Do you think they'll do it?
If they don't, we're going to definitely raise hell.
There's been all these calls to basically unseal the affidavit to let everybody see what's in there. I'd certainly be quite interested in knowing what's in there.
Look, as a former national security prosecutor and public defender who's handled thousands of search warrants literally, challenged them, brought them, had them authorized. What's been publicly released is just a piece of the search warrant and an exhibit or two. Right? Doesn't really say much of anything except authorize, go forth. What we do know is that the search warrant was so overly vague and broad that it might not pass Constitutional muster. What do I mean by that? Search warrants are supposed to outline with particularity the places to be searched and the things to be seized because you're alleging crimes X, Y, and Z. It's not, go forth and get everything. And they already have been proven, they, the FBI and DOJ, to have overreached. They went in there and took President Trump's passports. They took the diplomatic passports of the former president of the United States. They've now since been returned. But who is going through this material down in Mar-a-Lago that they didn't know not to do that?
So privileged material from what I understand. Right?
And that's a great point. That's even a bigger point. Right? It's now been publicly reported, and I don't have any inside information on that because I'm not a DOJ or FBI, that they went in there and took attorney client privileged information and executive privilege information. On what basis, in what law is the FBI conducting a raid of the former president's home to take that information? That should never happen in the United States of America. Think about it. If you were just accused of a criminal offense, and your attorney's home was raided, and they took conversations and communications you had with your attorney in the preparation of your defense, wouldn't you be outraged? Yes, because it's against the law.
It's no different, except now you're talking about the president of the United States. So what's the DOJ's explanation going to be for this one? The search warrant was over broad and overly vague, and we didn't direct people to take the things that they were supposed to take. They just took everything. That's another, not only is it a massive optics problem for the Department of Justice, but it's going to be a problem going forward when we get further into the search warrant. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get too much further this week at this week's hearing.
So what do you think is going to happen with this affidavit?
So not to get into the weeds about how you challenge search warrants. You challenge the four corners of the search warrant at a Franks Hearing at the appropriate time. And you hopefully get an FBI witness on the stand to cross examine him to say, "Why did you do X, Y, and Z based on the affidavit?" Now look, the basic practice and most of the law is you don't, you the defense, or the target of the search warrant I should say in this instance, doesn't get access to the affidavit until there's a charging decision. That's how the Department of Justice and FBI work.
Also, let me remind you this case is before a magistrate judge, who has all sorts of recusal problems. And the matter's going to be heard, the reading of the affidavit, before the same magistrate judge. And so he would be way out of line to rule on this matter. It's appropriately handled by a district court judge, as we talked about last time. The difference is the district court judges are presidential appointed, Senate confirmed and lifetime appointees. The magistrate judge is sort of like the guy who prepares all the stuff and is a temporary judge in federal court and doesn't have the same authorities and powers as a district court judge does. So I think they're going to go into court and there's no way this mag as we call them, magistrate judges, signs off on the ability to get the affidavit.
What should happen in this unique situation is that for now even though it should be accessible to the American public, at least President Trump's lawyers should have access to the affidavit, so they can review it with their client, the president, and say, "We think these actions were inappropriate or wrong," and now we have an opportunity to review it at least with the protection of a court order, so that they can discuss the matter with their client and see what the next steps are.
There's also ways to produce it, like we were talking about the other documents early in the show. If this judge decided to put it out there, I mean the DOJ has come forth and publicly said, "You're going to expose our entire investigation." Well, that's kind of the whole point because the public outcry you have caused by what I call their overreach and politicization is so massive that this country needs to be informed what your basis for this raid was.
And they can redact. These guys are pros at redacting when they want to be. And they're also pros at hiding behind this shield of, we're going to release sensitive information and our investigative avenues and sources, so we can't do it. Sure you can. Just redact it. I'm sure President Trump will give you his black sharpie to make such redactions. But in all seriousness, there's many ways to do it. They should at least give it to President Trump's legal team now. The matter should go to a district court judge to be adjudicated properly. But the American public I don't believe will learn much about the affidavit come this week's hearing.
So you're saying that these affidavits are typically only released once there's a charge that's being laid. And what about rumors of this indictment?
Rumors from the mainstream media, I tend to ignore every day, all day. And a quick definition of what the affidavit is, it's basically the FBI and the DOJ's reasoning for why they went and got probable cause for a search warrant. In this matter, they'd have to explain to this judge in this affidavit under oath, this is the information, we had a source, or we didn't have a source. We had documentation. We had surveillance. And I'm just making stuff up because this is what's normally in affidavits for the judge to review.
Now again, this is why the underlying documents, not just the affidavit need to be exposed. And that's what we were talking about, where Congress's role is so critical because as we learned in Russiagate, it's not just the affidavits, it's what we call the 302s, the FBI contact reports, the source verification documents, and all the pleadings and drafts from the Department of Justice. Were there corrupt FBI agents involved in this case? Was it the same ones that did Russiagate, that did Hillary Clinton, that falsely called Hunter Biden's laptop Russian disinformation? I need to quickly clarify something. People keep calling this a criminal investigation. The way the DOJ has laid this case out, this is a national security investigation.
I used to work at the National Security Division. There's a reason there's a National Security Division and a Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. They don't really overlap. And what the DOJ has publicly said is they're looking at President Trump for a counterintelligence matter. That's why it's in the National Security Division. There different statutes apply. We're not talking about bank robberies and drug running and fraud and things like that. We're talking about very specific national security matters. Once you open up what we call a CI, a counterintelligence investigation at the FBI, those investigations remain open for years. They don't really close. And what the Department of Justice and the FBI are then able to say is, "We have an ongoing investigation. We can't tell you anything. We can't release anything."
They played this trick during Russiagate. And until you put the right screws to them, they're never going to put that information out there. But I have firmly said and believe that the information that is part of this raid investigation, quote, unquote, and part of the apparatus that's blocking the declassified documents from coming out is that this FBI and DOJ don't want the rest of the Russiagate documents out. They never wanted them out. They don't want the Hillary Clinton email investigation documents out because they're going to show more corruption at the FBI and DOJ. And that's the same exact thing that happened when we went after the FBI, DOJ and Russiagate.
They said, "Nothing to see here. Everybody acted appropriately." We were lied to then and we showed it with the documents. And now the FBI is going to go out there and say, "For years, we have had an open CI investigation." There's all this conversation about: Did the White House know? There is no way on planet Earth that the Department of Justice did not tell the White House Counsel's Office of this raid—of this investigation.
Do I believe that Joe Biden didn't know? Probably. There's no need to tell him. They probably couldn't even find him. But when you investigate a president or former president, there has to be communication between the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. I think you're going to find out down the road that there was. The White House is being too cute by half by saying, "Joe Biden didn't know," as if that's the ultimate decision making point. He was off on a taxpayer funded vacation with Hunter Biden, ironically enough, in South Carolina while this all went down.
And so I think we need to get to the bottom of that as well because: Was the American public lied to about who was in the know? And the attorney general made it abundantly clear when he came out to the podium and spoke to the American public, I personally authorized the search warrant. Okay. Who did you and your team talk to?
And let's talk about the players that the attorney general has working on this investigation. The number two, Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general, and the pay dag as we call it, the number three at DOJ, John Carlin. John Carlin used to be my boss at the National Security Division when I first started back in the day at DOJ. He was the assistant attorney general at the time in charge of the National Security Division, pretty high level stuff. He was the AAG when Russiagate was launched. He is now the number three at the Department of Justice. Lisa Monaco was a senior DOJ official that John Carlin used to work for back in the Obama administration.
She then went to the White House, and I think was on the National Security Council for some other high level position. Now she's back at DOJ. These three people at DOJ are in charge of this. And I think that's why you've seen the political overreach for the national security investigation because these same folks have wanted to get Trump no matter what the cost. And if they can't indict him, which I don't believe they'll do, they will be able to now say "What? Donald Trump, you're under investigation." And they'll be able to say it for years on end.
How do we know that these three people are specifically out to get Trump?
Based on the Russiagate investigations, these people were in leadership positions back at DOJ when they launched Russiagate. They would have had to have authorized it, been in the know about it. And we've now learned that it's not being reported well enough I think by the media who these individuals are and the roles they're playing. They're the three people running the entire Department of Justice. And the FBI is a part of the Department of Justice, not the other way around. Chris Wray reports to them and his agents report to them.
So the key thing that I think they wanted to achieve is that even though the Department of Justice's policy has been to not bring any sort of political investigation in and around election cycle—they've thrown that out the window. They, now the mainstream media, who has helped them at every step, will be able to say, even though President Trump hasn't announced if he's going to announce a run for presidency, if and when he does, they'll be able to say, "This guy's under investigation for a national security matter."
They still get that narrative out there, even if it's baseless, which I believe to be the case. It will turn off Americans who might have, prior to then, voted or supported President Trump in 2024. So they are advancing this political narrative based on false information I believe, just like they did Russiagate, and I think they did it tactically and strategically at this point in time, to try to thwart President Trump from announcing his candidacy for president.
So Tucker Carlson in a recent monologue has said the obvious thing that his enemies want to see Trump in jail. What do you think?
I probably have a slightly different opinion on that. The FBI and DOJ have been weaponized and politicized by its leadership to take out political opponents. What they want, some of them, a lot of them probably want to see President Trump in jail. But what they want at the end of the day is to disqualify him from ever being the president of the United States again. And they will go through the ends of the Earth and hijack the law enforcement community yet again to try to make sure that happens, so that is what I think the ultimate end goal is.
Well, Kash, I think it's time for our shout out.
Shout out goes to Ann Wright. Thanks so much for your commentary on our board. We enjoyed. Jan and I read all the quotes that come in. Keep posting. We also tremendously enjoy the live chat feature for Kash's Corner. I believe, Jan, last week we ran record levels, over 5000 live chats. So we hope to see you this Friday night live. Want more, like I do, watch my friend, Jan Jekielek's interview of Victor Davis Hanson, or as I like to call him, VDH, one of the foremost prominent minds when it comes to history, law, and the intersection of politics. This interview is riveting. It's available on American Thought Leaders with Jan Jekielek. So I hope you tune into that and this coming week's episode of Kash's Corner. We'll see you next week on Kash's Corner.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Follow EpochTV on social media: