search icon
Live chat

Kash Patel Breaks Down Top 3 Investigations House Republicans Should Launch ‘On Day One’

“What the Republican Party has to do is decide: Are we going to jump in and play by the same rules that the Democrats have been and go big on mail-in ballots? And my advice to the Republican Party is yes,” says Kash Patel.

In this episode of Kash’s Corner, we discuss the results of the midterm elections and Trump’s recent announcement he’s running for president in 2024.

With Congress now split, Kash breaks down the three investigations he believes House Republicans should launch “on day one.” How can House Republicans force federal agencies to turn over documents?

“Republicans should remind America and the agencies more importantly … that they control the purse strings,” says Kash Patel.

BUY the Jan 6 DVD:, Promo Code “Kash” for 20% off.

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


Kash Patel:

Hey everybody, welcome back to Kash’s Corner. I’m down here in West Palm Beach, Florida where I was just at Mar-a-Lago last night for President Trump’s announcement of his candidacy to seek the presidency yet again. And Jan is back in Washington DC. How are you doing my friend?

Jan Jekielek:

I am doing fantastically well, and the reason is we are beginning season six. I cannot believe that it is season six. Unfortunately we don’t get to be together today because we had some respective important events that we had to participate in. We need to catch up on what has been happening. The big thing, of course, is the election, and then the event where Trump was announcing.

Mr. Patel:

We have a lot to unpack here. We promised our viewers that we would talk about both the House and the Senate, the repercussions of the vote, what investigations might occur and how the budgeting cycle might operate, and we’ll dive into all that. But you’re right. We have to start at the epicenter of the political universe right now, which is Mar-a-Lago, Florida.

Mr. Jekielek:

As expected, President Trump basically said he would have a special announcement on the 15th. And true to form he did, and he gave a speech that was quite interesting, because it was a different tone than I’m used to seeing from him. The other thing that I noticed was that he talked quite a bit about China, having gained quite a bit of experience in dealing with China during the four years that he was president. Why don’t you dive in and tell me what you’re seeing?

Mr. Patel:

You’re the China expert, but I will touch on a piece of it that is in my universe. You’re right, I was reminded last night why Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016. It wasn’t a rally, it was an announcement to seek the candidacy to be commander in chief again. What he replicated, harkening back to 2015 and ’16, was that he put out solutions after identifying major problems facing America writ large, not just for our communities in a singular fashion, but for our nation as a whole. 

For me as a national security intel defense guy, I have to start with the border. We’ve seen over the last two years, and this is one of the things President Trump talked about a lot, narcotics pouring through the border, specifically Chinese fentanyl, which is killing 100,000 of our youth a year.

An astonishing statistic that Donald Trump highlighted last night was about drug dealers overall. Every drug dealer in America at the end of the day is responsible for an average of 500 overdose deaths during their drug-dealing career. That is just astonishing, Jan. When you say it like that, America gets shocked, “Wow, we really have a drug problem.” And we do. 

We specifically have a Chinese fentanyl problem now, and they’re fashioning it with ways of delivery to make it appealing to younger youths and even children, i.e. doing it with gummy bears. What he identified was that we’re going to take on China. For me, taking on the fentanyl trade and sealing the border was a massive part of last night’s announcement. 

Related to that, he also identified the illegal immigration and the crime that goes hand in hand with having an open border and not knowing who’s coming in. He was talking about things like having dozens of identified foreign terrorists who have snuck in through the border, and we don’t know where they are currently.

That to me is a national security crisis. So, he identified these things. He talked heavily about the economy and inflation, which is affecting literally every American. He talked about ways to achieve the results he had during his first presidency. And that’s what resonated with America last night. 

Especially for me, when you’re talking about it being a different tone, it was very even keel. He was speaking about how he would solve America’s problems. If you’re going to run for president of the United States, you have to not just identify problems, but present actual solutions. And he offered a bunch last night.

Mr. Jekielek:

Absolutely. With the fentanyl, I’ll just remind our viewers briefly that the way that Chinese regime operates is like a mafia state. If Xi Jinping, who now is ruler for life since the most recent Congress, wanted to have fentanyl flow stopped to the U.S. as he promised the president once, he could do it immediately. Because people would know that if you don’t, basically you’re going to face the toughest repercussions that you can possibly imagine. 

The other thing that he mentioned, which is of critical importance, is the repatriation of supply chains. Of course, manufacturing is a really critical one, which is existential for the U.S. They targeted it in the past administration, but not much has changed as far as the medical precursors. A lot of the elements of the medicines that we use all the time in the U.S. are made in China. That is a massive potential amount of leverage that the CCP has over the U.S.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. It’s a national security threat because it’s coming from the CCP in China. It’s not the most sexy topic, but it’s one of the most critical, because you’re talking about the pharmaceutical industry. What President Trump focused on in his first term was making or opening up the pharmaceutical industry to other countries, and to have Americans have the right to pick prescriptions and where they come from to make them more affordable, and also at the same time, not relying solely or heavily on the CCP in China. 

That was a big part of his address last night. Two things stuck out to me that I actually wasn’t expecting. One is that he took on the deep state, but he took it to the next level, in my opinion. He said, “Yes, we have to drink the swamp. Yes, we have to take on corruption.”

But he set out a mandate for congressional term limits for senators and house of representative members. I have not heard a president campaign say that ever in my lifetime. That is something that is growing in America. That is something that America has learned. Unless you have term limits on our representatives, both in the Senate and the House in Washington DC, there’s no way to drain the swamp. So, that’s a campaign measure that’s going to attract a lot of attention. 

The other one, and maybe I’m a little biased, that stuck well with me was how he said we have to support our law enforcement and our military, but he took it one step further. He said those that are brave enough to serve our country and were tragically forced to choose between their faith and serving our country in a law enforcement or military capacity was one of the most un-American things that he has ever heard of.

I agree with him. What he meant was people were forced to choose between their faith in taking the China virus jab. Thousands of employees, service members, and federal law enforcement agents were terminated because of that, because they chose their faith. He said, “We will rehire and reinstate every single one who was terminated because of that justification with back pay.” Between the congressional term limits and the support of our military and law enforcement, those are probably two of my biggest takeaways, outside of what we just talked about. 

And I haven’t discussed this with anyone, but I had a private dinner with President Trump after last night’s announcement, and we were talking about the efficacy of his speech. I told him that the tone that he struck and the subjects that he hit were not just a rally-style speech, but a message to Americans about what a commander in chief can do if he identifies problems, and also offers solutions. He did an excellent job of putting it out there. Now the two year race begins.

Mr. Jekielek:

That really did strike me, his focus on mandates, that there will be no mandates of any sort. I believe he mentioned that. This will definitely resonate with the Health Freedom movement people out there. 

There’s a few things he didn’t talk about—the other potential candidates for the presidency on the Republican side. There was no mention of that and there wasn’t any mention of election fraud either. I thought that was interesting.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. The message was forward not backwards, and I totally agree with that. Maybe when you’re on the stump rallying for candidates, you can talk about what happened to you personally in the past. But the message and the theme was, “How are we going to fix tomorrow and the future?” That theme served President Trump tremendously well last night, because it offered a forward looking vision of how to solve America’s problems. 

He didn’t need to regurgitate all the history as to why we are in this mess. We’re in this mess because we know who the president is right now. He did a splendid job of keeping it just between the boys, as we say, and not discussing who might be political opponents, not overly politicizing a political announcement, and keeping it substantive on national security, on healthcare, on education, and also talking about men not participating in women’s sports.

That got one of the biggest rousing ovations I’ve ever heard at Mar-a-Lago. A lot of people feel that way about things like that. When he talks about that as a former commander in chief, and hopefully the next commander in chief, people will listen to that message. That’s what he did very well with the style and grace. When bringing the first lady up on stage, and watching them walk into the ballroom, you could see that this was a movement they are in together. He gave America of an actual vision of what a Donald J. Trump presidency would look like with Melania Trump as his first lady.

Mr. Jekielek:

We have to jump to the midterms here.

Mr. Patel:

Oh boy.

Mr. Jekielek:

We have a lot to cover. Let’s start here, with the red wave that didn’t happen which many of the pollsters were expecting. There were situations, like for example in Pennsylvania on the state representative ballot, where there was an actual candidate who had died and who got elected, which was kind of unbelievable. 

There’s been a lot of theories as to why this exactly happened. One of the things that has been resonating with me is that there’s been a shift in certain states from voting to balloting where it’s getting out people that you would call less engaged voters. 

If ballot harvesting is legal in a state, people can go out and they can motivate the people that are unmotivated. If you have a political machine that can do this, you can get out a lot of ballots in ways where traditionally appealing to voters wouldn’t work at all. The argument is that this is what the Democrats did very successfully in a number of places to the point where the actual day vote didn’t actually matter anymore, like in Pennsylvania. What do you think?

Mr. Patel:

I have a lot to unpack in that, and some of the people that are watching this show might find what I’m about to say unexpected. But here’s what the Republican party has to decide. They have rallied against early-day, mail-in voting, whatever you want to call it, early-decision voting, because with the core values of the conservative base, they feel election day should be on election day. 

The state legislatures, as you and I have outlined extensively on the show, control how Arizona votes, how Florida votes, how Iowa votes, and how Pennsylvania votes. What the Republicans have tried to do is recapture the legislatures and the statewide offices, so that they can go back and change the laws to allow for just same day paper ballot voting, which is another thing President Trump talked about last night. But if you can’t capture the legislatures, and the state AG’s office, and the state gubernatorial office, then you can’t change the laws.

They tried that, and it’s failed in two consecutive election cycles for a number of candidates. What the Republican party has to do is decide, “Are we going to jump in and play by the same rules that the Democrats have been and go big on mail-in ballots?” My advice to the Republican party is, “Yes, go big on mail-in ballots, because right now that’s the lay of the land.” 

As you said, Jan, when it came to certain states and certain races, election day almost didn’t matter. It wasn’t of consequence, because so many hundreds of thousands of ballots had been issued in the prior weeks. I’m not saying you have to get rid of election day voting, and/or get rid of mail-in voting. You can make a hybrid. 

Let’s look at a couple of examples; Iowa, Missouri, Florida. When you compare those states to my home state of Nevada, you’re talking about states that have two to three times the population of Nevada who are able to meticulously count every vote while having early day voting and mail-in voting and same day voting and give us a concrete result the night of the election.

If they can do it, why can’t other states do it? The answer is because other states choose not to do it. Other states allow mail-in voting to go past election day like Nevada. Like Nevada, where they don’t have voter ID. Literally, you can vote via mail five days after election day in the state of Nevada. 

What Republicans need to do is make some definitive decisions. Are they going to get behind the mail-in voting ballot structures in the toss-up states that we’ve identified; Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona? And if they decide to do that, are they going to actually get out and collect ballots lawfully like the Democrats have done and say, “We are going to collect your ballots pursuant to the laws of the state and mail them in for you.” Are they going to be able to collect an extra 100-200,000 votes per state?

I think they will, but I also think a lot of Republicans are fighting internally with their core beliefs. They don’t want that to be the way voting is done. But here’s the reality for Republicans. That is the way voting is done. In the last two election cycles Republicans have lost certain seats that even I expected them to win, because they were outperformed not on policy, but they were outperformed on metrics and logistics. It’s something the Democratic party just outplayed them on. 

The Republican party has to decide. And then, are we going to finally get the legislatures and the gubernatorial candidates in the offices that we want to change. It’s a practice that can’t happen overnight. When we talk about the Senate in a second, versus the House, you’ll see why some of these positions may have cost Republicans, and been the actual reason that the Republicans got stuck in the minority again in the Senate.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s a number of races that were close in California that went to the Republican side. I get the sense that in those races, this is where they did go in on the ballot harvesting, where ballot harvesting has been legal for some time, and the machine basically was built out to do that ballot harvesting.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. I have some personal knowledge there, and putting my bias out there, my dear friend Ric Grenell has a massive initiative as a Californian that he calls Fix California. We were actually together last night and doing some of the math on some of these tight house races, and literally the House race that was called just an hour before President Trump gave his remarks which gave the Republicans the majority in the house and retired Nancy Pelosi. 

What they were able to do out there was they registered tens of thousands of new Republican voters in these consequential districts, and then also got them to use the mail-in ballot system along with election day voting to get some of these candidates across the finish line. You’re talking about margins that are somewhere in between one in 5,000 for two or three of these races. 

That’s not a lot of votes, Jan. But California, at least on the Republican side in these races chose to play by the rules that the Democrats were playing by, and look what happened. We picked up a few seats, the ones that allowed Republicans to have the majority again in Congress.

Mr. Jekielek:

It seems pretty clear that the Democrats will have the majority in the Senate this time around and the House is going to be Republican. So, what are the implications of that?

Mr. Patel:

Let’s start with the Senate. Right now Democrats have 50 seats, Republicans have 49. We have a runoff in Georgia in about three weeks with Herschel Walker and Warnock running off for the Senate seat there. If Republicans win, it will go back to 50-50, and reminding our audience 50-50 is exactly where it’s at now. How the Democrats get the majority is because the tie breaking vote, if there’s a 50-50 tie in the Senate, goes to Vice President Kamala Harris, who will vote and give the Democrats in the Senate the majority, as they’ve had the last two years. Even if Herschel Walker wins, the Democrats will end up with the Senate majority. 

Budgeting processes start in the House of Representatives by law, then they go over to the Senate. We could circle back to that, but in terms of just putting out money for the government to operate under a Biden agenda, it has to start and be authorized by 218 people in the House of Representatives. Now, that can be a mix of Democrats and Republicans, but we aren’t in those times, and we haven’t been in those times for years. What I’d like to highlight though from my time back doing the Russiagate investigation on House intel when the Republicans were in the majority, America learned a valuable civics lessons those last few years. 

What does that mean? It means whoever’s in the majority has the gavels, or as we say, they’re the chairman or chairwoman of each separate committee; Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, Intel, and Oversight. All of these committees have specific jurisdiction over things like the State Department, the FBI, the DOJ, the DOD, and the CIA. What you’re allowed to do when you’re in the majority is to conduct constitutional oversight on each agency within each branch of government. The legislature’s job is critical in this, because no other branch of government can play this role.

The top three investigations that Republicans should launch on day one in the House of Representatives is one on the DOJ and the FBI. If you haven’t seen an episode of Kash’s Corner, then you won’t be familiar with why. But Jan and I have covered this extensively, as we think there’s an extensive amount of corruption in the DOJ and FBI. Two; Fauci, who’s emblematic of a lot of things. It’s not just him as a person. It’s him in terms of his messaging as the leading health expert in the United States government from when Covid started, to his messaging on the origins of the virus, to his messaging on the vaccine. 

If you’ve watched him testify, he has been caught lying or misleading the American public in Congress on numerous occasions. We are owed answers, because millions of Americans and millions of people around the world decided their health status because of this. What to do with their families, what to do with their kids schooling, and mask mandates, were all based on this information. If it was given fraudulently or intentionally misleading, then that individual, or individuals such as Fauci need to be held to account. The only way to do that in the current environment is through a congressional oversight investigation. 

The third one that is as important as the other two is the border, the complete failure at the border for also reasons we’ve outlined in the past on the show. Mainly to me, it’s the invasion by the narco-traffickers of not just Chinese fentanyl, but all the drugs, cocaine, heroin, meth, everything else that’s killing so many Americans. And then, the human trafficking issue, which actually is another thing President Trump brought up last night. He wants to, again, like he did in his first administration, tackle human trafficking. 

We have seen it rise to levels it hasn’t been at in years, Jan. We’re talking about child sex exploitation trafficking, the human trafficking of women, and the human trafficking of what we would call modern day slave labor. This is all going on in record numbers. That’s why an oversight investigation of DHS, Mayorkas, and everyone there needs to be the third main investigation that Congress can launch in the House of Representatives with a Republican majority. They can do a number of other ones, and they have a whole lot of other work to do. But this is a starting point as to where a Republican agenda in the House of Representatives should begin.

Mr. Jekielek:

The one that I’ve heard about a number of times is the investigation of Hunter Biden’s dealings with China and Ukraine.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, and that fits in. You can do it a couple ways, Jan. You can give that investigation on its whole to one specific committee. You can create a standalone committee, which I don’t think anybody really has an appetite for, but maybe they’ll do that. Or you can break it up. You can say, “Okay, Hunter Biden’s laptop as it relates to foreign dealings with China can go to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Hunter Biden’s laptop as it relates to substantive criminal conduct would go to the Judiciary committee,” because they have oversight on the DOJ and FBI. If there’s intelligence failures or intelligence information, with gaps or leaks or things like that on there, then that would go to the Intelligence committee.

These committees can also have an agreement with each other. Intel and Judiciary can get together and say, “Hey look, we know there’s a piece of intel on this. We’ll help you out on the side, but you guys will lead. You can run the Hunter Biden laptop investigation,” like we ran the Russiagate investigation. 

Yes, it was run out of the House Intel Committee, because there were many intelligence components to it. But as we now know, years later, there were many components for the FBI and DOJ in terms of law enforcement. There were many components to the courts, and there were many components to the overall national security of America in elections. We packaged it in one place. Hunter Biden’s laptop is another example of something that can be done like that. My suggestion would be that it go to the Judiciary committee for an oversight investigation.

Mr. Jekielek:

That’s absolutely fascinating. There’s something that we talked about on a previous show. You mentioned when agencies that are being investigated or are being asked for information are not forthcoming with that information, you have this technique that you use to basically withhold funds, and that would elicit a quick response. Please comment on that.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. This is a good. I’m going to get to that in a second, but it raised another great point that I want to talk about right now. What you see in the Republican Party on the House of Representative side is people who are challenging the presumptive speaker, Kevin McCarthy for the speakership. The reason that’s going on is because each side of the Republican faction there knows they don’t have the 218 themselves to get it. 

So, what’s going to happen is horse trading and jockeying. The minority caucus is going to say, and rightfully so, “Hey, we want some of our men and women to lead some of these committees, because we want to focus on Hunter Biden’s laptop, and we want to focus on the border.” 

The other things they’re going to be talking about with Kevin McCarthy, who’s at this time the presumptive speaker of the House for the Republicans is, “Okay, what about authority? Are you, the speaker of the house, going to delegate your authority down to committee chairman and women, so that we don’t have to come back and ask you every time we want to issue a subpoena?”

Now Kevin McCarthy has already publicly promised that, which is a significant step. It’s lawful, it’s permissible, and the Democrats have done it while they’ve been in the majority. These are little mechanisms that people don’t think about, but that people learned about through the select committee on January 6th, the power of a congressional subpoena. What it encompasses is; how to produce documents, and how to get witnesses to come in and testify for as long as it takes. These are all tools and lessons the Republican Party has learned. What’s going on right now is they are setting the table so they could execute on that agenda in this speaker race, for lack of a better term.

Jan, you know me well, and I we’ve said it in the past. The one thing people in Washington, especially the bureaucrats in Washington respond to is money. Their agencies and their departments cannot run without taxpayer dollars. It’s that simple. They cannot run without a budget that originates in the House of Representatives, and that both chambers pass, and that the president signs. 

What we learned during Russiagate was that we were facing an extreme amount of resistance from the DOJ and FBI that was put in place by the Trump administration themselves. Figures like Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray that we’ve talked about extensively on the show were given congressional subpoenas, not just one, but north of 10 congressional subpoenas for documents, witnesses, and information. And we were stonewalled. Only on one occasion did Paul Ryan at the time let us pull the mechanisms and levers of Congress to force them to produce it.

What we did was call this thing called fencing. You don’t take all the money in their budget. I don’t think that’s the right approach, but you are allowed in Congress to build these make believe fences around buckets of money. You tell these agencies and departments, “If you want the $5 million for X, please comply with the congressional subpoena and produce the documents.” 

And what happened overnight, Jan, we got thousands of pages of documents relating to Bruce Ohr, relating to the FISA court, relating to all the material we had jumped into so deeply. It just shows you that they were stonewalling, because they were covering up their corruption. And that’s what is going to happen again. That’s what is going to be the nemesis of the Republicans in the House of Representatives when they’re in the majority. But there’s ways to overcome it.

There’s another thing called The Holman Rule, and that’s basically what I just described. It says that if the bureaucrats in the executive branch don’t comply with congressional subpoenas, then you take all their money. That’s an extreme measure and it’s on the table. But Republicans should remind America, and the agencies more importantly, that it is on the table and that they control the purse strings. So, they’re going to have to unify.

That’s the other thing, Jan, the Republicans, even with the majority in the house, if they only have a majority that’s 2, 3, 4, 5 seats strong, they can’t afford to lose many. If they lose more than a few, then they don’t have the votes to hold that majority. Republicans are going to have to come together on many of these investigations in unison if they want to see results, and they owe those results to the American people. That’s my personal opinion.

There are too many unanswered questions on the FBI and DOJ, too many unanswered questions on January 6th and Ray Epps and all that information, too many unanswered questions from the  Durham investigation and the border and Fauci and Covid origins and the efficacy of the mandates, and so much other information that we as Americans are owed. The Republican Party has an opportunity to go into Congress and say, “We work for you America, and this is our list of investigations and topics we are going to take on for you.”

Mr. Jekielek:

Kash, as we’re finishing up here, I can’t help but think that there is one investigation I would be very interested in understanding, basically the executive branch-Big Tech collaboration around censorship and messaging. There is a lot of evidence that has now come up out through FOIAs. Do you expect that the House will be picking this up in some way, and how could they do it?

Mr. Patel:

Yes. That’s a topic we definitely don’t have time to fully jump into today, but free speech and Big Tech are going to be front and center. Just look what’s going on with Elon Musk and Twitter. You see the individuals and groups that have normally championed Twitter are now going after Twitter, and this conversation is just beginning. Elon Musk’s takeover is just beginning and he’s already firing thousands of employees and reforming Twitter. 

We will see what side of free speech places like that fall on. But what Congress will do is go in there and say, “Are you a free speech platform?” If you’re a free speech platform, and we’ve talked about this in the past, will Congress revisit Section 230? That is, will they offer the social media giants the protections against defamation, just because they say there’s a federal law that allows it? That law can be undone.

Many Republicans have called for the undoing of that law. That is a gargantuan conversation when you attach the TikToks of the world to it, plus the fact that the CCP in China is literally stealing everyday American’s information. On Truth Social, I heard someone describe TikTok as the modern day digital Chinese fentanyl. I couldn’t come up with a better description of that. 

That’s exactly what it’s doing. It is stealing our information to the benefit of our adversary and we are letting them do it. And then, there’s a whole notion born out by the recent election, a lot of the youth, the 18 to 28 bracket of voters, voted almost exclusively based off what they saw and heard on TikTok. That’s another matter that Republicans are going to have to address, along with Congress—how free speech and how these social media platforms affect elections.

Mr. Jekielek:

To your point about TikTok and Big Tech in general, Dr. Robert Epstein has been on my show a number of times on American Thought Leaders talking about how Big Tech has the ability and actually does this to shift votes of undecided voters in a particular direction, notably to the Democrats. This is what Dr. Robert Epstein has been arguing. 

There’s an op-ed on our site that’s titled, “How Google Stopped the Red Wave.” He’s saying that based on his research and his monitoring of these kind of ephemeral experiences where the search results are stacked in a particular way, what that actually creates is a situation with people that are undecided, their votes are being shifted in a direction that Big Tech is interested in seeing them shifted. Think about what that would look like with TikTok, which isn’t being monitored, and essentially is under the control of the Chinese Communist Party.

Mr. Patel:

I think you’re right. We definitely don’t have time to get into the whole ramifications of all of Big Tech. When I think Big Tech, I now think of another topic, the crypto exchange that just went belly up. Now, it’s being reported that millions and millions were tied to bankrolling Democratic initiatives. That’s a whole separate investigation that Congress will have to probably take on and directly involves Big Tech. 

We’ll probably have to do a show just on that. The theme of this show has been elections, Jan, and I know you asked about the red wave earlier, and I only answered it partially. I do feel I owe to the audience a complete answer. It’s no surprise that I was out there on the campaign trail, and even I thought that in the Senate the Republicans would get to 51, but they fell short.

Why is that? Well, there’s a couple of things. We always talk about disinformation on this show and we always call it out when we see it. The media played a part in the so called “red wave.” I’m not sure where that started, or who started saying it first, but when you are the party in the minority and you seize the majority, that’s a wave, red or blue, whichever way it’s going. 

When the Republicans picked up the House of Representatives, that’s a monumental win for all the reasons we’ve talked about, with the changing of the gavels and the guard. Nancy Pelosi will no longer be Speaker of the House. That didn’t happen in the Senate, and why didn’t it? It has to do with the early day voting initiatives that we talked about, the mailed-in ballot initiatives that Democrats worked harder at.

There’s one more specific reason that I haven’t mentioned, and that is I believe some of the candidates on the Republican side of the House and Senate failed to connect with the independent voting base on kitchen table issues. Of course, they had Donald Trump out there, and a lot of the media’s blaming him “for the lack of this big red wave.” I don’t really agree with that analysis. 

Donald Trump set the landscape. He went out there and did something like 35, 40 rallies around the country. His numbers in the win-loss column were pretty astounding when you look at it, pretty historic. This is part of the disinformation narrative. A guy like Donald Trump sets the stage and the candidates have to come in and say, “How am I going to get you, western Pennsylvania 10,000 more jobs? How am I going to get you, Arizona in the southeast corner, better healthcare? What am I going to do for the education platform in the outlying districts surrounding Las Vegas?”

These are the what I call kitchen table issues that certain candidates failed to connect on. The Democratic candidates not only connected on them, but also use the mail-in ballot initiatives to catapult that process. And then, there’s the issue of abortion, and whatever your position is on abortion. We’re not going to get into it on the show right now.

The messaging on abortion, when it came to the Democrats, was much better and much more in unison than it was for the Republicans. They went out there, and again, bringing up disinformation, talked about the Dobbs decision from the Supreme Court, which didn’t federally revoke anyone’s right to an abortion. What it did was, and what I constitutionally agree with, was it said, “Abortion is a state’s right issue.”

But because we had that unprecedented leak of the draft opinion from Dobbs, the Democrats seized on that. If you look at the outlying statistics after election day, single women in America broke 70-30 to Democratic candidates. That is a large voting block that the messaging campaign was missed on. I’m not saying you have to be for abortion or against it, that’s your personal decision. 

What I’m saying is Republicans didn’t message successfully. The law is that each state will decide the status of abortion. And for those reasons collectively, the Republicans fell short in the Senate of the anticipated 51-52 seat majority. But for the opposite of those same reasons, candidates on the Republican successfully won enough seats, or will win enough seats in the House to take the majority there.

Mr. Jekielek:

Kash, this is our show for today, episode one of season six. It’s time for our shout out.

Mr. Patel:

You’re right, Jan. For those of us joining Kash’s Corner for the first time after six seasons at the end of the show, we have a tradition of giving our fans a shout out to those who have participated in our live chats and on our messaging boards. Jan and I engage with them on a weekly, if not daily basis. Today’s shout out goes to Betsy Fitzer. Thanks so much for your support for our show here on Kash’s Corner, Epoch Times, and EpochTV. 

We appreciate your comments. We appreciate everybody’s comments. This week, at least one of us will be back live on Kash’s Corner for the chat feed during our program, which airs on Friday evenings at 8:00 PM. Thank you everybody for your support over these five seasons. Here we go for season six. We will see you next week on Kash’s Corner.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Truth Social:


Read More
Related Videos