search icon
Live chat

Kash Patel: Newly Released FBI Notes Expose Their Own Lies and Conspiracy Against Trump | Kash’s Corner

“In March of 2017 … [then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe] is admitting—in a meeting with the team running the Russiagate investigation—that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Trump Tower,” according to newly released FBI notes, says Kash Patel.

These handwritten FBI and DOJ notes incriminate top officials and expose a conspiracy against Donald Trump, Kash says.

“As the lead Russiagate investigator, I never saw these notes. We asked for them. And they told us—they, the Department of Justice, the FBI—told us they did not exist.”

In this episode, Kash explains what he’s found in these newly released documents and why the judge’s recent order in the Michael Sussmann case was not a huge blow to special counsel John Durham’s case, unlike what many have claimed.

Kash and Jan also take a look at the firestorm of protests occurring outside the homes of Supreme Court justices since the leak of a draft ruling on Roe v. Wade. Will the justices be influenced?

* 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. We have looked at all your comments and we are going to give you the full details on how to obtain The Epoch Times exclusive, SpyGate infograph signed by me. We’ll give you all the details at the end of the show.

Jan Jekielek: Kash, it is actually quite amazing how many people are interested in this infographic. It’s got a number of years on it. I don’t even know how many, but it’s aged really well.

Mr. Patel: Well, that’s what the truth does, Jan. It ages well, and it has required no corrections. Personally, if I can take a second, as the chief investigator of the Russiagate hoax, it is my favorite poster infograph ever produced by anyone in the media, and the Epoch Times nailed it, which is why our audience wants it. And as an added bonus, I’m going to sign it for them.

Mr. Jekielek: Once again, John Durham is delivering for us for the show here. It’s quite amazing. Actually, in this case, it’s the defense. Some of their submissions, we’re going to look at, and also this new judge’s order that there’s some pros and cons, from your perspective. We’re going to find out a little bit about that today.

But we’re sitting not steps away from the Supreme Court right now, where there’s, of course, we discussed last week, there’s all sorts of protests in response to this draft ruling by Justice Alito being leaked. And in fact, from what I understand, all six of the conservative justices’ homes have protests in front of them.

So let’s start talking about this because there’s actually federal law that is supposed to prevent behavior in front of judges’ homes that would influence their decision making, which is presumably the purpose of the protest in the first place. So lay this out for me.

Mr. Patel: Yes, no, I’m glad we’re starting on this topic. We’ll get to all things, John Durham. And I think our folks in the audience should go back and quickly look at last week’s episode, how we set up the Supreme Court and how we talked about the leak in the investigation. The unfortunate next step that we have to discuss now is these “protests/riots” that are occurring in front of Supreme Court justices’ homes.

There’s a federal law. It’s United States code 1507. It basically says, and rightfully so, that no judge, not just Supreme Court justices, but federal judges, district court judges, circuit court of appeals, judges and Supreme Court justices, who are the final arbiter of the law in the land, they should not be forced to sway their decision based on public posturing in their private places, their homes, and or sometimes even their offices, depending on how close the folks get and how threatening they are.

What we’re seeing as a result of the unprecedented and what I call unlawful leak by someone at the Supreme Court, of the draft opinion for Roe v. Wade, has led to another tectonic shift in how the media portrays it. Some in the media, literally Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago has said it is okay for us to have a call to arms based on the draft opinion in Roe v. Wade, and go before the Supreme Court justices homes and do so. MSNBC has repeatedly postured and parroted that same violent rhetoric. And the-

Mr. Jekielek: Why is it violent? Why is it violent?

Mr. Patel: Well, when you say a leader of a city, one of the biggest cities in America, and a network that is watched by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people a week, goes out and said a call to arms is okay, that’s literally inciting violence by telling people it’s okay to arm themselves with whether it’s fire weapons, weapons period, or any kind of incendiary devices. And they’re saying it’s okay.

Heads of law enforcement and the media are saying that’s okay because they’re so upset at what they believe to be the pending decision from the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade. And I remind our audience, there is no decision yet. It hasn’t come out. So you don’t know what it says. But circling back to the justices, there’s a specific federal statute, United States code 1507 that protects them. And it should protect all judges.

A lot of our justices who are in the federal court system, who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the United States Senate, it’s an extensive process, for life tenure should have the protection that the decisions they make in any trial, whether it’s a high publicity trial or a trial that gets no publicity, that their decisions cannot be swayed because they’re going to go out to their car and find a mob, or they’re going to go home where their wife, and their husband, and their children, and their grandparents are and find angry protestors in the street.

They should not have to endure that. And that’s why that law is in place. Tragically, some of these justices had to relocate based on some of these protests and that should never happen in America. That’s not our model of American jurisprudence. And for the world to see that happening in the United States of America, because the left has shown their hypocrisy on selectively picking what matters, that you can have a call to arms on versus for what you can’t, just shows the bankruptcy in their position from a credibility and a legal standpoint.

If the, I don’t want to say the shoe were on the other foot, but if the situation were turned around and it was a conservative or moderately Republican based group protesting in front of justices’ homes, I think the Left Wing mainstream media would have quite the different reaction. I don’t know what this justice department is going to do. I don’t have much confidence that they’re going to be prosecuting anyone under this code.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, and so how does actual enforcement work in this case? It’s federal law, right? Who should be doing the enforcement right now?

Mr. Patel: No, great question. As everybody knows, we have a state court system, and a state law system, and a federal court system, and a federal law system. Justices of the Supreme Court are federal court officers. So whenever a federal agent, or a federal officer, or someone working for the federal government is involved, generally, and this is generally speaking, a crime involving them because of their federal duty is a federal offense.

So the federal law is the one we just talked about. Thus, who should be investigating it? Federal authorities. Now that can be a range of the different investigatory agencies we have, but generally speaking, it’s the FBI. If it involves firearms and explosives, it can be the ATF—the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The Department of Homeland Security can come in and assist.

It’s a different mishmash of agencies that can get involved, but it should be one or a combination of those agencies. And we’re not seeing that.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, we’re not seeing them overtly at least. It’s possible that they’re infiltrating the protests. We know that they do that, right?

Mr. Patel: Yes. We know that they do that. From the January 6th, not to get marred down in that, but we know now from the FBI and the Whitmer case in Michigan, where Governor Whitmer’s case, the defendants were just acquitted, that the FBI inserted agents and undercover officers and sources into both the January 6th events around the Capitol and at Whitmer’s “trial” where they said her life was threatened.

But getting back to the Supreme Court justices, you’re right. Most of these investigations should not be made public. But this attorney general, because the matter is of such grave public importance, has a duty to inform the public whether or not an investigation is at least ongoing. That’s all he has to say. He doesn’t have to talk about the details. He owes no obligation on it at all, to reveal the details to anyone. And because of the sensitivity of it, I would not.

Being a former national security prosecutor, that’s how we operated. If we were investigating someone of great public importance, and we thought that the public should at least know that fact, we did it. We did it with Russiagate, and that was Obama’s justice department. And Trump did it with many other high profile matters that we handled during his administration. So it should be no different, but for some reason, this attorney general, it is.

Mr. Jekielek: The Virginia attorney general is proposing to use basically state law to do the enforcement around this.

Mr. Patel: Well, not only that, but Governor Youngkin just authorized the use of state authorities to protect the Supreme Court justices, which I found very interesting because he’s the governor. He’s the chief enforcement officer of the state of Virginia and the state of Virginia laws. That’s an interesting twist because I think he feels that the federal government isn’t doing the job necessary to secure their safety and the safety of their families.

Now, state law could also operate from a district attorney level to say that the riots or protests in front of their homes, the justices’ homes, are breaking numerous local statutes, such as disorderly conduct and equivalent statutes. A lot of times, what you have, quick example, you have murder in the federal statutes and you have murder at the state level.

The language is pretty close, if not identical, in most instances. It’s just the players are different when you apply federal law versus state law. So it’s no different here in the state, Virginia and Maryland for that matter, their district attorney’s offices and their local law enforcement police could come in and say, “We are investigating those who are impeding on the justices’ ability to perform their law,” if a similar statute exists.

Mr. Jekielek: Yes. Also, the White House spokesperson, Jen Psaki weighed in on this. I’m actually going to read what she said. She said, “The protests have been peaceful to date and we certainly continue to encourage that.” That’s what she basically told reporters at a recent press conference. Your thoughts?

Mr. Patel: Outrageous. As the White House press secretary, she’s the spokesperson for not only the White House, but the president of the United States. And she’s going to the podium, just like the mainstream media, and parroting almost language that is permitting, I should say, an avenue towards violence. Why wouldn’t this president come out and the press secretary come out and say, “Protests near the homes of Supreme Court justices are off limits”?

If they did that, a lot of that mob and a lot of those angry protestors would listen. But they are encouraging it and they’re saying it’s okay to gather in protest in front of Supreme Court justices’ homes.

Mr. Jekielek: I just want to highlight, she was saying that the protests have been peaceful and I want to continue to encourage that. It doesn’t sound like she’s advocating for violence.

Mr. Patel: No, but I think that’s a sleight of hand, if I’m being honest. What the White House should say is, “In this instance, stay away from the justices of the Supreme Court,” all nine of them, not five of them, not four of them, not six of them, all nine of them. And not just today, but forever. I can’t recall another instance where the justices of the Supreme Court have been ganged up on and where a White House has come in and said, “Well, if you do it peacefully, it’s kind of okay.”

That’s what happens when you get the epicenter of government to go ahead and say, “It’s fine now.” So you get more and more and more and more people there. And then there’s going to be a limit where it breaks. Then you and I are having a conversation in a month or two and we say, “Well, did the White House encourage that?” And I’m going to tell you they did.

Mr. Jekielek: All right. Well, looks like the nation is going to keep watching what happens here. Let’s jump to Durham. I find it really, really, really interesting that Sussmann’s defense attorneys have basically pulled all this discovery material and basically presented it in an effort to save Sussmann. But in the process, unmistakably, they’ve unearthed all sorts of interesting material that we didn’t even know about.

Mr. Patel: Yes. I think, Jan, what you’re referring to is discovery by the government is never… As a prosecutor, we don’t publish it in the media. We don’t release it to the media. We make filings to the court. The defense took, as we call, exhibits, which are certain documents that the government turned over to Sussmann’s legal team.

They specifically took those, and what we’re going to talk about are handwritten notes from top level FBI agents and lawyers, and the general counsel of the FBI and others who are at the epicenter of Russiagate, their own handwritten notes and their own emails from justice department officials, talking about meetings involving Michael Sussmann’s case.

They put them on blast for the world to see by adding them as attachments to their motion. What most people don’t know is, as a former federal public defender, where I had to file motions like that and I did, I would have kept the exhibits under seal. I would have filed my motion, but the exhibits would have been something that if it were not to the benefit of my clients, I wouldn’t allow the public to see this.

Again, on the half dozen or more episodes we’ve done on special counsel Durham’s prosecutions, in this case, I’ve always said that the defense has strategically overplayed their hand. They got so far down that track that there’s no going back for them. So I think this is another extension, another example of them overplaying their hand.

This was another monumental blunder by the defense. And they’re making it increasingly difficult for them to portray an actual defense at trial to the jury.

Mr. Jekielek: I’m going to read a headline from two of our top Russiagate analysts, Hans Mahncke and Jeff Carlson. They believe the new Department of Justice notes reveal FBI panic after Trump tweeted he knew he was being sped on.

Mr. Patel: Well, not only do they reveal FBI panic, they show FBI lies by the people that perpetrated the Russiagate hoax. Andy McCabe, the deputy director of the FBI, and I remind our audience, as deputy director of the FBI, Andy McCabe lied to federal officials at the inspector general’s office about him, Andy McCabe leaking information to the media while he was the deputy director of the FBI.

That’s why he got fired, for no other reason. It involves individuals like Peter Strzok, who was the number two federal agent at the counterintelligence division of the FBI, who lied in both his book, which he went on a book tour to sell. He lied to the FISA court when he applied for a federal search warrant to surveil President Trump’s campaign. And the basis of that lie is now exposed in the documents that the defense in Sussmann’s case has put out for the world to see.

So I think what Hans and company wrote about is accurate, but I think it falls short of how disastrous this is for the defense. But we’re thankful for it because it helps us educate the American public on how corrupt these officials were, from Andy McCabe, from Peter Strzok, from the likes of Bill Priestap, and Sussmann, and Clinton world and Marc Elias. And the list goes on to Fusion GPS.

Mr. Jekielek: Let’s remind our audience and let’s see if I get this right, because so Strzok, basically, in his book, he writes, “I believe that it was President Trump’s tweet goading Russia sarcastically to release information,” at least that’s how he described it. That got Alexander Downer to provide information that would then initiate the whole Russiagate probe.

Mr. Patel: Nailed it.

Mr. Jekielek: But it turns out that actually the dates don’t work exactly right.

Mr. Patel: The funny thing about chronology and dates is you can’t really make them up and you can’t dance around them. But you can, if you withhold from the federal court, the federal judges and the American public, selective information, because you want to parrot a political narrative against a certain individual, in this case, their target being Donald Trump and his campaign, that you want to make true.

As a federal agent, and as a former federal prosecutor, myself, that is the most egregious conduct you can do, you can perform, because you’re entrusted with these responsibilities to enforce the law and not break it. What Strzok did is extremely disappointing for someone who worked with the FBI as I did for so many years.

And it blemishes the tens of thousands of federal agents that we have in this country. Here’s what he did. You’re right. Your summary is spot on, Jan. But I want to take it a little deeper. What Peter Strzok did was he said President Trump, and this I’m taking our audience back in time to about the spring of 2017 and before when Peter Strzok is the head agent working on FISA warrants to surveil President Trump and his campaign.

He’s going before a federal court and lying about the sequencing and the cause of the investigation. Let’s go back before that further. The electronic communication, which I believe we can post now, because it’s been unclassified at least in large part, the EC, which launched the entire Crossfire Hurricane Russiagate investigation for the FBI, which was written by Peter Strzok and signed off on by Peter Strzok saying, “These are the reasons we must investigate Donald Trump and his campaign.”

We now find out that Peter Strzok lied about the reasons why that investigation was started, and he got caught. He got caught by his own writing and by his own documentation. And as you said, dates don’t lie. Donald Trump’s notation, or tweet, or whatever you want to call it, about, “Hey Russia, I think… And I’m paraphrasing, “If you’re listening, let’s get some emails.”

He buried the fact that the WikiLeaks DNC leak had occurred. And that is why Donald Trump issued a statement or tweet about it in a half joking manner. He said, “No, no, no. It’s Donald Trump who ticked off the FBI. This guy, Alexander Downer, who’s an Australian diplomat in London talking to Americans and saying, ‘There’s a threat to democracy. We have to use this as justification for our investigation.'”

Can you imagine, Jan? If a federal law enforcement agent launched an investigation on you or your family or friends, whatever the violation was, based on fraudulent information and known lies, why should it be any different, the consequences for a guy like Peter Strzok when he launched this investigation against a candidate for president of the United States.

Then it carried over, those lies. I want to tie this together. Those lies carried over from the start of the investigation in the summer and spring of 2016, all throughout the four FISA warrants. And these notes show in March of 2017 when this meeting occurred. And Strzok’s notes are in here that he perpetuated and continued that lie even though he knew it was false. He repeatedly lied to federal officers and judicial officers at the FISA court saying, “Our investigation is righteous for these reasons.”

He got caught. Then he wrote a book and sold it and the mainstream media let him have at it. And now John Durham has caught him lying. I think he’s got big trouble when it comes to, from a prosecution perspective.

Mr. Jekielek: I’ll just read a quote from Strzok here. So you don’t think that him getting the dates wrong is “A little error”?

Mr. Patel: A little error? I think it’s a little arrogant that a 17-year agent of the FBI, the number two counter intelligence agent for the entire Federal Bureau of Investigation, the individual charged by the FBI, James Comey and Andy McCabe to run not just the Trump investigation, but the Hillary Clinton email server investigation, got a date, a date of important significance wrong as a little error.

That is a gargantuan lie, and Peter Strzok has gotten caught. That’s probably why the defense isn’t going to call him as a witness because he would get shredded on cross examination. And I imagine he’d be taking the fifth even if anyone called him anyway.

Mr. Jekielek: It’s interesting. We haven’t actually talked about Strzok in quite some time, and it is amazing that he would call it a little error. There’s a whole bunch of other people that are involved here that are actually named in these notes. Actually, some of these people are people that you worked with directly, from what I recall. Give us an outline. How are these people connected to you and what are you seeing here?

Mr. Patel: As a former terrorism prosecutor at the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, I worked with many top-level officials there and in the FBI. Before Andy McCabe was deputy director of the FBI, he was what we call the AGA, the head of the Washington field office for the FBI—pretty high level position. I worked with him on national security cases there.

One of the most surprising things I saw in these notes is that they involved the cast of characters that we had exposed as the perpetrators of Russiagate hoax, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Tashina Gauhar, Bill Priestap, and others at the FBI and DOJ. But I was surprised to learn that these notes specifically involved then acting attorney general, Dana Boente, the head of the department of justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

And they involve James Comey’s chief of staff, James Rybicki, who’s also in these notes, who I also worked with. So it’s problematic for me personally because as a lead Russiagate investigator, I never saw these notes. We asked for them and they told us, they, the Department of Justice and the FBI told us they did not exist, which I think shows another lie and another coverup for perpetuating this hoax by taking false information to a federal court.

Mr. Jekielek: Just very briefly though, what is the recourse in this sort of situation? If in a congressional investigation, you ask for something that ostensibly must be given to you or to the congressional member of the committee and it isn’t. And then it turns out that the situation is as you described here. What’s the recourse at this point?

Mr. Patel: That’s the problem. People want accountability, and I don’t know how they’re going to get it. Tashina Gauhar, for example, at the time, Rod Rosenstein, number one in the deputy attorney general’s office for national security, who I knew when I was a chief investigator. I called her, I sent her emails. And I said, “Look, this didn’t happen on your watch, but can you help us clean it up? Can you provide us with the information?

Why didn’t you provide me with your emails? Why didn’t you provide me with these notes that I know you knew about now, because you’re in the meeting and your name is there, and you’re scheduling the meeting, per one of the exhibits that Michael Sussmann has put forth through his defense. Why didn’t you give that information to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a member of the gang of eight?

Why didn’t Peter Strzok’s notes, why weren’t they transposed to us at the House Intelligence Committee, when we subpoenaed congressionally the department of justice and the FBI for all notes and matters relating to Russiagate and the FISA application process, which is what is at the heart of this matter? Why didn’t we get more information from Andy McCabe when I put him under oath and deposed him years ago about these very meetings? Why is it now a surprise?” Because they hid it.

They lied to the American people. I think that’s why our audience needs to focus on these notes. Most people are like, “Oh, it’s just a couple of exhibits that are meaningless.” And Jan, we haven’t even gotten to the biggest part about these notes, that I think is of consequence that our audience should know about.

Mr. Jekielek: Kash, presumably you mean some of these notes written by Andy McCabe. There were a few that jumped out at me. One of them, very obviously, here he says, “Can’t say what had occurred historically between Alfa Bank and Trump server.” Interesting, isn’t it?

Mr. Patel: It’s shocking. I mean, interesting is putting it mildly, Jan. The deputy director of the FBI in a meeting in March of 2017 with Peter Strzok, with Tashina Gauhar, with the acting attorney general, with Bill Priestap and others, and James Baker, the general counsel then of the FBI, is admitting, in a meeting with the team running the Russiagate investigation, that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Trump Tower.

When did he know that? Why didn’t he testify to that when I interrogated him under oath at the House Intel Committee. The fact that the deputy director of the FBI, who I would remind our audience, would later, when James Comey was fired, Andy McCabe became acting director of the FBI. Andy McCabe signed the final FISA warrant as the top FBI official, which the law requires, before it’s taken to the FISC.

And what does that mean? It means he’s verifying the authenticity and accuracy of the reporting in that FISA. And that statement that you just read shows that Andy McCabe knowingly lied to a federal court, and there are serious consequences to that. I just don’t know if this DOJ is going to pursue them. But going back to the facts of the underlying statement, he’s now demonstrating that he knew, for whatever reasons, what we’ve shown to be true all along.

There was no Alfa Bank server connection. It was a total fraud. And that goes to the heart of the Michael Sussmann case, because Michael Sussmann, reminding our audience, is charged with lying about who his client was when he pedaled the Alfa Bank information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was run by then deputy director, Andy McCabe.

I don’t even have words for how disappointed I am in federal law enforcement officers, who I used to work with, who could just go into meetings, go into a federal judge’s chambers, go before a federal court and lie. With such wanton disregard for the law, Jan, just yeah, it’s disappointing for me as a public defender and former national security prosecutor, but now I know why America’s trust has been totally shattered when it comes to the FBI and their ability to maintain impartiality and not base investigations on political favors.

Let me remind our audience, another thing about Andy McCabe. His wife was running for state office in Virginia at the time of the Russiagate investigation that he was leading. His wife received $700,000 from Hillary Clinton world for her elected office race.

How is an officer so high in government, so involved in the Clinton email investigation, so involved in lying about the Russiagate investigation, how is it that Andy McCabe, who as deputy director, lied to federal law enforcement officials in the inspector general’s office about leaking information to the media, how is that man not in handcuffs now? How was he ever placed in a position of such trust and great public importance?

To me, it’s the worst part of the Russiagate investigation, putting aside the fact that there were characters like Adam Schiff and Swalwell and company running around peddling false information. As a federal law enforcement agent, you know better. He violated the oath he took on day one. Telling the public about it is step one, but I hope John Durham is investigating that man for perpetuating a fraud before the FISA court.

Mr. Jekielek: There’s another line, actually, from Andy McCabe, that you pointed out when we were preparing for the show, that I didn’t actually see the significance of. I’m going to read it here. It’s one line. He says, “We have an enduring effort re: Russians.”

Mr. Patel: Reminding our audience, these notes show that this meeting occurred in March of 2017. This meeting occurred with the acting attorney general, the deputy director of the FBI, the head of the counterintelligence division, the top lawyers for national security at the Department of Justice and the general counsel for the FBI, and who knows who else? We just know these are the characters listed in their own notes.

In March of 2017, a reminder, audience, the FBI was getting ready for its third FISA application against a now sitting president in Donald Trump and his campaign associates. You have the deputy director of the FBI, who’s responsible for verifying the authenticity and truth in that application to a federal court saying, in writing, that we, the FBI and the DOJ have an enduring Russia threat and investigation.

That means he lied in that meeting yet again. By that point in March of 2017, I’ll remind our audience, it was proven to the FBI that Christopher Steele’s dossier was total BS and full of fraudulent information. And Andy McCabe knew about that. On top of that, it was proven that Christopher Steele lied and went to the media and was fired by the FBI for breaking the source code rule number one, don’t tell anyone about your relationship with the FBI.

And it was after Andy McCabe lied about leaking to the media about the Hillary Clinton email investigation. So that’s why, to me, this is the most disturbing and damning statement. After all of that, knowing all of that, and being the number two officer and on his way to being the number one officer at the FBI, he still is telling everyone, “We have an enduring investigation, a righteous investigation,” that we have to continue to tell lies to a federal court, get another, not just one search warrant, but then go back to that federal court, the FISA court, and get the fourth search warrant that Andy McCabe himself signed because he was so hell-bent on finding Russian collusion that never existed.

To me, that is the biggest problem I have ever seen uncovered in the entire Russiagate hoax. And it falls at Andy McCabe’s feet, along with Peter Strzok, who is his top Lieutenant while they perpetuated this fraud. And we’ve been over the reasons why Strzok’s “I made a mistake line” doesn’t hold water. It’s the same reasons that the defense’s attempt to utilize these notes to their benefit is going to fail disastrously for them at trial.

Mr. Jekielek: I think to see the significance of some of these things, you really have to see the whole picture as you had to, in order to do this work. Absolutely fascinating. Let’s talk a little bit about the judge’s order. So some people are unhappy, from what I’ve seen in commentary and so forth, that the judge is basically saying he doesn’t want to distract the jury from trying to figure out a whole conspiracy case, if that case hasn’t actually been charged by Durham. It’s almost like Durham is being put on the hook for adding some extra charges or something like-

Mr. Patel: You’re not far off. Look, as prosecutors, if you’re winning 95 percent of your pre-trial motions, which is what’s happening in this Sussmann prosecution, and I remind our audience that the rest of that order is granting John Durham entry of all the evidence that we’ve talked about in past episodes. We won’t rehash that. But you bring up an interesting point that I actually think is of much less consequence than the public and the media making out to be.

It’s almost as if they’re saying John Durham just suffered a big blow. It’s not. What the judge is saying is, it’s his discretion under the law, which is accurate, on whether or not to allow certain information regarding a conspiracy that’s not charged, to come in during court. The conspiracy, the underlying conspiracy that he’s talking about, doesn’t have to be unlawful for the federal statute and the federal case law.

What John Durham wanted to do was talk about the joint venture conspiracy between all the folks that we’ve talked about in the past, Fusion GPS, the FBI, the Clinton campaign, the DNC, the media, and so many others. The judge came in and said getting into that too deep would involve a trial within a trial, a mini trial.

And I’ll remind our audience, before I continue, the judge now has seen more evidence and information than anyone else in this case, except for maybe John Durham, because the judge granted John Durham’s in camera ex parte request, previously that we talked about, to review classified and unclassified information that the government, that John Durham has in his possession that he wants to use at trial.

He’s now seen all of that. And what he’s basically said to John Durham, and I’ve had this happen to me as a federal prosecutor, is, “There’s these motions, and in limine these pretrial motions. I’ve got to give the defense something.” So the judge has a responsibility to protect the record, as we say. He wants, if a conviction is sustained in his court before him, he doesn’t want an appellate court to reverse it because he got some evidentiary issue wrong.

So he’s basically saying, “This is a little too much. You, John Durham, don’t need it. Basically, I think you’ve proven your case in chief, but if you, John Durham want to charge the defendants or others with a conspiracy, then I’ll let all that information come in.” He’s almost goading John Durham into doing that.

Now, from John Durham’s perspective as a strategic prosecutor and as a methodical prosecutor that he has been, he may have already charged that conspiracy and it’s under seal, or he may be working on charging that conspiracy and he doesn’t need it. As a prosecutor, you want to use every piece of evidence you need to sustain a conviction and no more.

So you always add some things that you know might get tossed out by the judge, based on his judicial rulings. And that’s why I just don’t think this is of that big of consequence. What I want to highlight for our audience-

Mr. Jekielek: Wait, wait, wait. So you’re basically saying this might even be a strategic move on the side of Durham to basically not win everything?

Mr. Patel: Yes, because you don’t know the cards he’s holding. You don’t know the defendants he has in the queue, as I’ve predicted, that he’s going to charge more people. It’s clear he’s laid out in his pleadings to date, the joint venture conspiracy involving all the folks, the Rodney Joffes of the world, the Sussmanns, the Eliases, the Sullivans, Podestas, Mooks, the Fusion GPS, and Peter Fritsch, and Glenn Simpson, and all these characters.

He’s pled that in federal court, the world has seen it. But what he hasn’t said is, who else am I charging? But he has said, judge, and this is what the judge noted in his ruling, he said, “You, John Durham have told me that some of these folks are targets, continued targets of your investigation. If that’s the case and you want to charge them, then I’ll let all this information in.”

And John Durham may just be at a point where he’s saying, “I’ve got enough. I’ve got my case against Sussmann.” Strategically, as a prosecutor, you want that first… This would be his second conviction, reminding our audience. He convicted the FBI for lying to the federal court in the Clinesmith case.

Now, if he gets the lawyer for the DNC at the epicenter of this joint venture conspiracy convicted in trial, without having to use all his information and evidence, he’s winning, because then he goes beyond that and says, “Now I’m charging individuals two, three, and four with this joint venture conspiracy. And for the first time, I’m unveiling this information in a federal indictment or a federal pleading.”

And so, we used to do that all the time when we had other co-conspirators we wanted to charge later. You don’t want to show your hand and you don’t need to show your hand as a federal prosecutor up front. That’s my take on it. It’s a good chance I’m wrong, but maybe I’m right.

Mr. Jekielek: Incredible. Well, and there was also a small development in the Danchenko case, because it’s easy to forget that there’s a whole nother case going on, right?

Mr. Patel: Yeah, you’re right. And I’m glad we remind our audience. There’s an entire other indictment by John Durham that really hasn’t been talked about in two, three months maybe. There’s a filing in that case, which basically said that John Durham is continuing to provide volumes of discovery to the defense, which is good for both due process and the defendant’s right.

But it also shows that John Durham is methodically moving through it. But what he did say to the judge was, “I may need a little more time in that case because my small team of prosecutors, investigators is so busy doing other stuff,” i.e. the Sussmann prosecution starting next week hopefully, that he may need a little more time. But we’ll get into the Danchenko case once we wrap up the Sussmann case here.

Mr. Jekielek: Kash, I think it’s time for our shout out. And as you mentioned at the beginning, a lot of people have been asking, how do I get my Kash Patel signed classic Epoch Times SpyGate poster?

Mr. Patel: For the shout-out, Jan, we have Rod and Sidney Levitt. Thanks so much for your kind words to both Jan and myself, which we read every week. Thank you to the audience for all your postings, including a lot of commentary about the Epoch Times SpyGate poster, which I am going to sign and which we are going to provide our audience an opportunity to get.

If you go to this link and click on this website, you can see how you can obtain your very own copy of what I have always called the absolute best Russiagate infograph ever created on planet earth. And as a special offering, I’m going to sign it personally. And I hope you and the rest of our audience hangs it up on their wall in their houses to follow along what truth and tradition actually mean.

Mr. Jekielek: If you’re not yet a subscriber to the Epoch Times, you can actually get a $99 one-year digital subscription with the Kash-signed Epoch Times SpyGate poster included for $99 at, If you’re already a subscriber, go to and we’ve got a special offer for you there as well.

Hey everyone, I’ve got some exciting news to share for American thought leaders in Kash’s Corner. We’re actually going to be expanding our production team and hiring an associate producer. You can actually see the job description at That’s all one word. If you know anyone who might be interested in this job, who has the qualifications, or you yourself might be interested, we’d love to hear from you. Again, that’s, all one word.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Truth Social:


Read More
Related Videos