search icon
Live chat

Kash Patel: A ‘6-Year-Saga’ of Government Corruption, From Russiagate to Mar-a-Lago

In this episode of Kash’s Corner, Kash Patel discusses Dr. Anthony Fauci’s retirement from public service, new documents showing potential White House involvement in the Mar-a-Lago raid, and developments in the Igor Danchenko case, led by special counsel John Durham.

A newly disclosed letter, first published by Just the News, shows the Biden administration asking the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in April to let the FBI look over documents from former President Donald Trump’s home.

“There was communications underlying these letters between the National Archivist, and the Department of Justice, and the White House, directly showing the White House Counsel’s Office and White House aides talking to the DOJ,” says Kash Patel.

What is “executive privilege”? Does a current sitting president have the power to waive his predecessor’s claims to executive privilege?

And if the gavel switches hands in November, will Republicans use congressional authority to investigate the Mar-a-Lago raid and Fauci’s alleged misconduct? Kash Patel breaks down the levers Congress has to prosecute agency officials.

* Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List“.


Kash Patel:

Hey everybody. And welcome back to Kash’s Corner. Jan, what do we have in store for today?

Jan Jekielek:

So there’s this amazing reporting that John Solomon has done about basically executive privilege or executive privilege being waived retroactively by the White House and how that’s connected with the Mar-a-Lago raid. I mean, amazing stuff. I’m going to want to get your take on that. Of course, everybody knows now that Dr. Fauci has announced his retirement, and some people are concerned whether there’ll be appropriate oversight or not. I’d love to hear what you have to say about this. Finally, some developments in the Danchenko case. I think that should be an episode for us.

Mr. Patel:

Okay. Where do we start?

Mr. Jekielek:

So I think we have to start with Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci has announced his retirement, as you and I both know, and some people have expressed concern that by doing this, he may be trying to escape some sort of congressional oversight or accountability for his actions over the last few years.

Mr. Patel:

So I think that is what he’s trying to do because he knows this administration will give him a grand sendoff, probably give him the Congressional Medal of Freedom from the president and the United States Congress, the highest civilian award you can get for government service. I think for us to give it to him would be a crime, basically. Why? Because what we are talking about is a course correction that was supposed to be the biggest pandemic of the last half century.

What we’re finding out while we uncover Fauci’s lies is it was just the opposite, in large part because of the false information that Fauci was responsible to put out facts, was putting out politics to appease leadership and the media. So I think it is critical Congress take the reins of this investigation because we know that there’s nobody in government that’s going to do it. There’s no DOJ or FBI that we can trust to run this sort of investigation, even though I believe Fauci should be prosecuted for lying under oath to Congress on numerous instances.

But Congress, and as we’ll talk about, has the ability, even when Fauci leaves government service, to effectuate constitutional oversight. I don’t think I’ve made it a secret my feelings toward Dr. Fauci and they’re based on his conduct as a government official. I don’t personally know the man, but everything that man has said has literally gone from one end of the spectrum to the other depending on what day it was. Fauci has been one of the most destructive people in government.

So the head of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky has now made it public that the CDC is going to do a total revamp, a complete facelift. Based on what? The utter failures of Fauci and his instructions and guidance during the entire COVID epidemic. That should show the world and America that we were led astray by politicization of our NIH response and our COVID countermeasures for political reasons. The problem I have with that is the same people that were running the CDC and got all this information wrong and spread all the lies on behalf of Fauci are the same ones now placing themselves in charge to redo it.

It’s like asking a criminal charge of murder to be his own judge. It doesn’t make any sense and it’s not going to lead to any accountability. The only thing they’re going to do is grow the size of the CDC, hire more people, typical government overcorrection, and say, “We’ve created new departments within the CDC. They’re going to look at how we got it wrong and issue reports and spend taxpayer dollars and we’re going to hire, hire, hire, hire our way to a solution.” That’s the biggest problem I have in government. It doesn’t just happen at the CDC. It happens at the FBI, at DOJ, at DOD, at CIA and everywhere else.

This government overcorrection as they call it, this isn’t the fix. First, figure out why you got it wrong. You got it wrong because you politicized it and lied to the American people and you got caught. Now, they want the mainstream media to carry their water again and say, “Okay, we’re fixing it. It wasn’t just us that got it wrong.” They’ll probably go back and say Trump got everything wrong like they normally do and sort of gloss over the details. Congress is the only one right now, not right now, when the majority flips that can look into this.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s a lot of conjecture about this that the moment that Dr. Fauci is out, there’s much more limited opportunities for providing this sort of oversight and accountability.

Mr. Patel:

So there’s some truth to that. So when you’re in government, the inspector generals as we call them—the IGs. Each institution or agency in government has their own inspector general, the DOJ IG, the DOD IG. We’ve talked about both on our shows in previous episodes. And so does the CDC and all these other institutions, NIH and everything. The reason they have these is because when government screws up, there’s supposed to be an internal investigation on its employees.

Now, while you’re still an employee in the United States government, the IG has jurisdiction over you, has the ability to call you in and question you under oath and question your research, your methods and look at the documents you produced and say, “How did you get to this position? How did you get to this decision? Was it wrong? Was it based on faulty intelligence? Did you lie?” The DOJ IG has shown us guys like Andy McCabe at the FBI lying while he was deputy director. The DOD IG has shown us under Biden that the Trump administration’s response to January 6th, for example, was correct, accurate and swift.

So these are important memorandums that they put out after months and sometimes years long investigation to inform the public. So I’m sure this IG, whoever it is that’s going to come in and do that, the problem is once you leave government, you’re not beholden to the IG anymore. That’s what people get wrong. They’re like, “Oh, IG can issue subpoenas.” They can’t. They don’t have subpoena power. They’re not the Department of Justice. They can’t haul you in front of a grand jury and make you sit down and talk. So when Fauci is out of government, he’s no longer in the auspices of the IG. He can voluntarily submit to it, but I’m pretty sure he’s not going to do that. So it’s left to Congress.

Mr. Jekielek:

So you’ve talked before in the last episode actually about using withholding of funds as this kind of tool to actually get agencies to respond. Is this the kind of thing you’re imagining here again?

Mr. Patel:

Yeah, I guess the timing’s good, because it’s fresh in my head because I literally just finished this chapter in my book that I’m going to release next year on how we have actual internal accountability from Congress. When I was head of the Russiagate investigation for then Chairman Nunes, we ran into roadblock after roadblock because we were a Republican majority in Congress trying to get documents and witnesses from a Republican administration. We thought, “Well, this should be pretty easy. It’s the same political team,” for lack of a better word. The truth couldn’t have been further from that.

What happened was we got the Heisman from Rod Rosenstein, from Chris Ray, from the IC, from everybody. Then we issued subpoenas. Congressional subpoenas, I don’t know if we’ve not gone over this, are a little different than say a DOJ subpoena. DOJ subpoenas carry a lot of heft. If you violate that, they can haul you into court and prosecute you criminally and put you in jail. A congressional subpoena is much different. It has a lot of weight in the media and it doesn’t have the teeth that an executive branch subpoena does. So we’ve seen these congressional subpoenas take years to literally adjudicate in court.

Remember, Holder was held in contempt of Congress for violating a congressional subpoena. The case took four years. The United States doesn’t have four years to do this kind of oversight. So what do you do? You do issue the subpoenas. You do ask for all the documentation. You do line it up so you can go out to the American public and say, “We asked for all of this material from Fauci.” All of the research, all the underlying emails, all of the communications on personal phones, on government phones, the classified information, the unclassified information, you make sure you document an extensive list, a glossary, if you will, of everything you’re asking for and show the American people you’ve asked for that.

Who asked for that? The appropriate committee of jurisdiction in Congress. For the FBI and DOJ, it’s the  judiciary. For the intelligence community, it’s the intel committees for the DOD, it’s the Armed Services Committee. Similarly, for the CDC and NIH, there’s a committee over health and sciences. So they’ll have jurisdiction over that and a couple of other committees will as well. So they can issue those subpoenas and they can issue subpoenas for witnesses as well, ie., to Fauci.

But here’s what’s going to happen. If the midterms go the way everybody predicts and you have a Republican majority in the House and Senate and they can run two separate investigations, let’s just stick with the House for now. They are going to run into a Democratic-led executive branch where all these actions were taken by the Democratic led CDC, the Democratic NIH, the Democratic DOJ and FBI and et cetera.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, originally Republican.

Mr. Patel:

Originally, yeah, at the start of COVID.

Mr. Jekielek:

But now, but now Democratic. Right?

Mr. Patel:

Right. You’re right. So what I first see happening is they’re just going to get stonewalled. So how do you break this log jam? Because Americans are tired of saying, “Oh, Congress is trying to do congressional oversight.” The executive branch is saying, “Sorry, not today.” Literally ignoring a congressional subpoena because they in the executive branch know it’s a pretty monumental lift to adjudicate a violation of a congressional subpoena in the form of contempt proceedings in federal court.

So we figured it out when we were doing Russiagate. It’s one of the themes of my career in government, follow the money. We were sitting around with Chairman Nunes when we were getting stonewalled by our own Republican administration and we said, “Okay, well, we’re Congress. We have the purse strings. We fund the entire government.” It’s not like we cut a check for them once a year. We do a budget annually. We fund programs based on specific needs and then those monies are released over time. I thought, “Why don’t we,” we call it, fencing is the term, “fence their money?”

If you loosely analogize it, it literally means put a fence around a pile of their money. But in congressional speak, in legislative speak, it means you craft language around a disbursement that an agency is due from its budget and you say, “Congress does lawfully have the right to do that. You the agency aren’t doing X, Y or Z.” But in order to do that, you need the approval of the Speaker of the House. Paul Ryan tragically only gave it to us once. He should have given it to us a dozen times, if not more, to get all the documents we wanted. In this incoming change at Congress, I think these committees of jurisdiction should do the exact same thing.

Hopefully, there’ll be a Speaker of the House who will not say, “Come to me every time you need to fence or take money, just go ahead and do it.” Now, let me be clear. We’re not trying to deprive these agencies of their funding stream and we’re not taking the money forever. But what you do is you hold pieces of the money. When we did that, after issuing multiple congressional subpoenas in Russiagate, we fenced the money for one night. The next day, we received 1,000 documents. So it worked and we wanted to hit repeat on that. But we were prevented from doing that from at the time Speaker Ryan.

So we can’t have that repeated in this instance. We can’t just have a one-off, because they’ll know the game and they’ll say, “We’re just going to wait and we don’t care.” It has to come every single time they refuse to produce a document, produce a witness, show up for testimony and force these people like Fauci to testify before the American public. Now I don’t want him to testify right away. I want us to do a proper investigation, get all the documents and put it out for the American people.

Then at the end, force Fauci under congressional speech, and could come in and testify publicly without any time limitations as to why he lied repeatedly to the American people about COVID, about the vaccine, about mandates and about social distancing. I can name a few guys in Congress who are probably chomping at the bit to get him to do that. Guys like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan and there’s a whole host of other folks that are looking to do that. I’m glad they’re motivated to do that because they’re the ones that have revealed Fauci’s corruption, but only in small snippets and there needs to be a collective.

This is the thing we’re working towards. There needs to be a collective report by Congress to make sure this never happens again. That’s the whole point of the investigation. It’s not to make Fauci a pinata in the media or make him just a dart board target. It’s to make sure that we never have someone who is in that position ever again when the next pandemic comes around, because we all know there will be one at some point in the future that the response is based on metrics that you can measure that are based in science and not politics. Then the legislature can create laws and enact budgeting cycles that prevent against this type of corruption. That’s the whole point.

We’re still fighting that cycle for Russiagate through to this day, be it into the Mar-a-Lago raid and onwards, which we’ll talk about in a little bit, but Congress has a critical role to play and I think America has learned a valuable civics lesson in the last five to six years, the importance of what a majority can do in Congress and this is what they can do.

And Jan, the last thing I would remind our audience is look at what this administration is doing to people who violate congressional subpoenas right now. They’re taking them to federal court. They’re trying to send them to prison. Well, this incoming Congress, when it changes has the same authority. If Fauci violates a congressional subpoena, they should refer him immediately to the Department of Justice. Now, I get that this Department of Justice, as we’ve talked about, is an executive branch that belongs to the Democratic Party.

But Congress has other powers that we unearthed during their investigation in Russiagate. There are multiple ways to prosecute contempt. One is a referral to the DOJ. Two, Congress actually has this little known power to adjudicate that subpoena and contempt proceeding themselves. It’s rarely if ever used, but it’s there and it’s on the books for this reason.

When you know someone has come before you under oath and lied, like I believe Fauci did on multiple occasions and you know a politicized DOJ and FBI will not take up the mantle as they should to follow that law and prosecute him, Congress has an inherent, as we call it inherent power to prosecute those who are in violation of contempt of Congress. It’ll be tough. It’ll take a monumental lift of will in Congress and leadership from the speaker who ultimately gets the say, but it’s doable. I haven’t heard anyone talk about that inherent power in some time.

Mr. Jekielek:

It’s fascinating because there’s all sorts of unprecedented action that’s being taken lately. This actually kind of leads us right into this recent reporting, again, by John Solomon. I want to give credit where credit was due. When he sent me this piece, I was just kind of stunned to discover essentially what he’s found is that it looks like the current administration or President Biden waived the executive privilege retroactively of President Trump. Is that how you read this?

Mr. Patel:

I think in part, and in full disclosure, John Solomon and I have friends. We’ve done work together in the past. I believe he does great reporting. He and I are also the only two named representatives for the former President Trump at the National Archives in this ongoing battle to get documents, so to speak. But we’ve talked about that in the past. So I do think in large part what John’s saying is true, but there’s a lot more than just the top level to this. Let’s take the privilege issue first and then we’ll get to the raid and what the White House we believe knew and lied about.

So the privilege issue, right, as a former national security prosecutor and as a former public defender, attorney-client privilege is paramount. It’s one of those principles or precepts, as we say, that our judicial system is founded upon because a client and his lawyer should have supreme confidence in their ability to exchange dialogue so that the defense attorney can come up with the best defense. That’s what due process is all about. Same goes on the civil side of things. There’s the attorney-client privilege. But one step above that is the executive privilege, the right of the President of the United States to have that same application of law to his confidential communications with his advisors, his cabinet secretaries and the like.

The only way you can vitiate or destroy or break that privilege is if somehow you can show that you, as the attorney, are allowing a crime to occur by not reporting it to the proper authorities. Here’s just a general example. Me as a public defender represents a client who’s charged with a violent offense and he comes to me and says, “Well, if you don’t do this, this and this, I’m going to hire these guys to go out and kill Mr. Smith.” There, you have a duty to take the appropriate measures to reveal that possible crime.

Now, that doesn’t break the whole attorney-client privilege. You’re just allowed to tell the authorities that specific piece of it. Everything else is still privileged. The holder of the privilege is not the lawyer. It’s the client. They’re the only ones that can waive it. The other thing about privilege, executive or otherwise, legal, is it survives death. So if your client dies, it’s not like the privilege goes away and the attorney or whoever can come in and say, “Well, my client’s no longer here.” This is established law in the United States of America.

So what you’re talking about is the President of the United States, Joe Biden, coming in and retroactively piercing the executive privilege of his predecessor, President Trump, with and about communications President Trump had while he was the sitting President of the United States. To me, that is dangerous, is putting it mildly Jan. But the effect that that has on the president’s and any future president’s ability to conduct the matters of state and national security in confidence has now just been thrown out the window by this knee jerk reaction because that’s what the radical left wing media wanted from Joe Biden.

So I think it’s a terrible day for due process and it is a political decision that continues to deteriorate America’s ability to stand on the global stage with any credibility.

Mr. Jekielek:

So the immediate thing that comes to my mind is this quote by Alan Dershowitz. So he actually agrees with what you’re saying. He’s saying, “Otherwise, privilege means nothing. What president will ever discuss anything in private if he knows the man who beat him can and will disclose it?”

Mr. Patel:

Well, and no surprise, Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional genius in the legal realm said it more succinctly than I could and I agree with him. He’s absolutely right. You destroy the ability of any future president to come in and have confidential communications to execute his role as Commander in Chief, be it in national security, be it in the economy, be it in diplomacy, what have you. Those conversations have always been protected because a lot of those conversations involve matters that the public, if we let out to everyone, it would undermine the Commander in Chief’s ability to execute the agenda he was elected to do.

Mr. Jekielek:

So I want to dig into a little bit of what actually happened. There’s this May 10th letter that’s being brandished about where the National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall said, “I have therefore decided not to honor the former president’s protective claim of privilege.” So she’s basically the one who’s basically saying that she’s not going to honor the privilege based on the advice of the current White House.

Mr. Patel:

It’s extremely reckless and entirely political. So the White House will now be able to say, “Well, Joe Biden made a decision and then it was implemented by the National Archivist.” As if that’s the law of the land, that the National Archivist determines when executive privilege and attorney client privilege for the President of the United States should be waived. So we’ll see where this goes. But I think for now it shows the American public two things. One, the continued politicization and unequal application of the law when it comes to all things Trump, and two, more importantly for right now, it shows the White House lied to the world.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay. So this is interesting. There’s a piece by Matt Taibbi, I forget the title right now, this disappearing raid, I think. Well, one of the things he notices in there is that if you look on the front pages of CNN and MSNBC a little while ago, this was the massive dominant story that would cover these print pages. Right now, and we looked just recently, they’re just kind of nowhere to be found, still being talked about, but certainly not front page news. So basically what Matt notes in this article though is that there’s at least eight instances where the White House’s spokesperson is specifically denied any knowledge of the raid itself. So that’s what you’re talking about here?

Mr. Patel:

Yes. Let me expand on that. I’ve said previously on the show early and often that there was no way that this Department of Justice executed this search warrant and this raid without the White House knowing, especially the White House Council’s Office, because it’s such a high profile matter and the target of the investigation is a former President of the United States, who is the likely candidate to be the next President of the United States. What did the White House do?

The Press Secretary came out to the podium on multiple occasions and they issued written and verbal statements and said, “We at the White House, including Joe Biden, learned about the search warrant, learned about the raid,” and I’m paraphrasing, “when the American public learned about it.” At that instance, I knew they were lying because I know how these types of prosecutions work, having run high level national security prosecutions myself.

But also just because it is good practice if you’re the DOJ when you are targeting a president and you’re talking about attorney client-privilege and you’re talking about executive privilege and you’re talking about the National Archivist, you’re talking about things that are going to impact many former presidents, Obama, Clinton, Bush, to name a few. Because these rules, if they’re interpreted this way by the courts, they’re going to apply to them. Are we going to see this DOJ go after them for the same thing? Case in point, Bill Clinton left the office of the presidency and literally took nuclear codes with him, it’s been publicly reported, and put them in a sock drawer.

You can’t make this up. Then got called out and caught for taking that. Now, nuclear codes are by definition classified. What did the Department of Justice say when they found out that Bill Clinton had them and he refused to give them back? Bill Clinton cited the Presidential Records Act, the same act that Donald Trump and his legal team are citing and that Barack Obama is citing to prevent the disclosure of the materials that they’ve taken when they left the presidency.

What did the Department of Justice do in determining whether or not Bill Clinton, did he commit a crime or did he do anything wrong? The DOJ said, and they set the standard, that once a former president enacts the Presidential Records Act, he is under no obligation to turn that material over. That material, the nuclear codes were never removed from Bill Clinton’s sock drawer by government authorities and taken away from him. If that is the interpretation that was applied then, how has that standard changed when applying it to former President Trump? That’s a question the DOJ has to answer.

But returning back to the lie that the White House has perpetuated now for weeks, if not longer. Now they’ve been caught because the reporting of John Solomon has shown that there was communications underlying these letters between the National Archivists and the Department of Justice and the White House directly showing the White House Counsel’s Office and White House aides talking to the DOJ. On top of that, if that wasn’t bad enough, it states explicitly in the letters that President Biden waived the privilege in regards to the documentation that was the subject of this search warrant and the raid at Mar-a-Lago.

So they can try to or be too cute by a half and say, “Oh, well, we were talking about the raid and not the letters at NARA and we were talking about the boxes in Mar-a-Lago.” But as we’ve just now outlined, it doesn’t matter. The White House lied about everything. What should happen is, and I think some in Congress are doing this, this takes us back to the top of the show, is that there should be preservation requests going out to the White House Counsel’s Office, the White House, the DOJ, the FBI, this attorney general, and this director of the FBI saying, “Save every single email, save every single document, and to the National Archives saying, save every document, every memo, every cocktail napkin, we want it.”

While the Republicans aren’t in the majority now, they still have to be responsive to members of Congress. As soon as that gavel flips, subpoena that entire stream of documentation. What you’re going to see is another level of corruption, almost on par with what we saw during Russiagate with corrupt leadership at these institutions and agencies in the White House covering politically and unlawfully to hide their lies. This is another investigation that needs to be run by Congress like we talked about the investigation they should run into Fauci.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, it seems to be the focus of the investigation. At least that narrative seems to be changing in the media and it’s not being covered curiously as Matt Taibbi has observed, right? So is this something that they could try to make it just go away quietly? It was the biggest top headline story for weeks.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. I think it’ll come back into the headlines. Look, there’s going to be, as you know, President Trump’s legal team filed some motions to challenge the search warrant, to ask for a special master, to ask for basically an individual team to come in, or not team, individual to come in and parse out what was taken versus what shouldn’t be taken and what should be returned immediately to the President of the United States. This case has now been kicked up to a district court judge.

What does that mean? We talked about it a little bit before. Right now, a magistrate was handling this, which I’ve always thought was entirely improper because the target was a former president and a magistrate is a temporary selected judge by district court judges. District court judges are presidentially appointed— Senate confirmed. Now, this case is moving to the district court judge where I believe it should have always been. This district court judge is allowing President Trump’s lawyers to provide more details on why they filed their motion and what they wanted.

Everybody’s focus has sort of been on this whole affidavit redaction and making it public. We talked about why that was a complete ruse and farce by the DOJ and this judge who combined collectively to pretend that they were cooperating with the request of the media and the public. But the DOJ just shut it down and basically said, “We want the whole thing sealed.” The judge said, “No.” But then the judge was like, “Well, the DOJ can redact away.” So what this magistrate judge attempted to do was appease the media, instead of answering the legal question responsibly, which was get portions of the affidavit out to the American public. Don’t let DOJ and FBI redact away their corruption.

He had the opportunity to do that and now I believe it will be taken away from him and go to this district court judge. So we’re going to have to see. There’s going to be a bunch of motions. This isn’t going to happen overnight. DOJ’s going to come in. People are going to appeal. They can appeal interlocutory as we say to an appellate court, every single decision along the way. So there’s going to be no short term answer. If and when an affidavit for the search warrant does come out, I believe it’s going to be heavily redacted. Congress is going to have to act again and go after those redactions like we did during Russiagate and expose the doctoring, I believe possibly, of these FBI documents—302s as we call them.

Mr. Jekielek:

Really quickly, why do you expect there to be doctoring?

Mr. Patel:

That’s been their practice. The same crew of FBI and DOJ people that launched the Russiagate investigation are now responsible for running this Trump Mar-a-Lago raid investigation. We’ve pointed it out. It’s the same counterintelligence division back at FBI H-quarters, which is run by individuals that used to work for guys like Bill Priestap and Peter Strzok are now the ones in charge here. Those were the guys that were all caught doctoring FBI 302s, lying to the FISA court, withholding exculpatory information.

So it’s not like I’m going off a hunch. I’m going off their own established track record and we caught them and it took a lot to catch them. So this coming Congress is going to have to work twice as hard, I think, because the magnitude I didn’t think could get bigger than Russiagate. Seems like we’re doing Russiagate 2.0. As I said before, all roads lead back to Russiagate. If President Trump decides to run again, these are our attacks now on a presidential candidate like Russiagate was.

Mr. Jekielek:

So in the last episode, you’re on record as saying that this whole thing is on par with Watergate.

Mr. Patel:

It’s worse. I think this entire situation makes Watergate look like the teacup ride at Disney world. Why? It’s pretty simple. Let’s rewind the clock and go back to Russiagate. You had in 2016 in America, in modern day jurisprudence in America, a Democratic party hijack the law enforcement intelligence community of this world by funneling millions of dollars through made up source intel, and then having this FBI go before secret court and unlawfully lie to that court to unlawfully surveil a presidential campaign and ultimately President of the United States.

Fast forward. Those same criminal gangsters at the FBI and DOJ are running this Mar-a-Lago raid investigation. They are running it maybe, and not maybe, probably not funded by the Democrats at this point, but it’s an extension of what the Democrats want to do. Remember, Watergate, we had political operators break into a building to steal information which is 100 percent criminal and people were prosecuted and rightly so.

Now, you have a six year saga of criminal activity from Russiagate to the raid. It’s the same people at the FBI and DOJ who started and launched Russiagate that are now supervising and doing the Mar-a-Lago raid, the search warrant and the efforts to take down a president. So it’s just an extension of that. The mainstream media is covering it and applauding it because they want one thing, for Trump never to run again. It’s not all roads lead back to Russiagate just because it’s the same people, but because the same people are trying to bury the same information.

It’s been reported in the press, since we did our last show, which I called before that, that this same crew of counterintelligence guys at FBI and DOJ want to hide from the public the 40 percent of documents that Devin and I found during Russiagate, but were unable to get out to the public, the documents that President Trump declassified while he was President of the United States. Now we see reporting in the media that that was one of the reasons if not the main reason for this raid to occur. So I tell the audience, stay tuned. I called it long ago that all roads begin and end with Russiagate. I think we’re going to be proven right here on Kash’s Corner.

Mr. Jekielek:

So it’s funny that you say all roads lead to Russiagate because, as we finish up, we have to talk a little bit about Russiagate. We have Andrew DeFilippis , the counsel that was going to be leading the Danchenko case, withdrawing from that now. What is the significance of that?

Mr. Patel:

Sure. So, yes, we’re coming up on October here. We’ve been talking about all this Mar-a-Lago stuff and search warrants and presidential actions and records. We hit pause on all things John Durham. The Danchenko prosecution is going to start in full force in Virginia in October. I think something that most of the media sort of sped by was the reporting that John Durham has decided to himself be the prosecutor in the Danchenko case, which is a significant move for a special counsel himself. It’s like an actual United States attorney coming into court and saying, “No, the Assistant United States Attorney aren’t taking this case, I am.” Almost never happens.

It’s even more rare when it’s a special counsel. So what procedurally needs to happen, and I don’t know this for sure, but I’ve been around these types of prosecutions for a long time, is that there’s usually a formal notice to the court to say, “The attorneys you thought and have been appearing for you are changing and we are removing one or the other and adding this person or a person that’s already on the roster will now be the lead.”

It’s only right practice and proper and appropriate practice to inform the court of that. So I would say stay tuned and it’s going to be pretty exciting if we see a guy like John Durham come in. It’s not a knock against Mr. DeFilippis, it’s just he’s the boss, John Durham, and he can decide how to prosecute these cases. If he’s going to take this one on himself, I think Clinton world, the Democratic Party, the FBI, the DOJ and the joint venture conspiracy that we’ve outlined in the past are going to be put on full blast by John Durham, because I’m not sure there’s anyone in America that has a better grasp on this information than he. So stay tuned.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, Kash, time for our shout out.

Mr. Patel:

So this week’s shout out goes to Daniel Rodriguez. Thanks so much for posting on our commentary board for Kash’s Corner. Thanks to everybody who has been tuning in on each week’s live chat. Jan and I have been having a lot of fun and we’re going to continue to do the live chat. We’ll see everybody back next week for Kash’s Corner.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Truth Social:


Read More
Related Videos