search icon
Live chat

Kash’s Corner: Durham Blasts FBI Corruption Despite Danchenko Acquittal

In this episode of Kash’s Corner, we discuss Igor Danchenko’s acquittal of four counts of lying to the FBI and the strategy the defense used to win over the jury. Kash Patel reflects on the trial’s key takeaways and whether Americans should have any faith in the FBI moving forward.

“Now, thanks to John Durham, we know definitively that James Comey, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, and all the others at the FBI—Thibault, Auten, Somma—lied to a federal court, lied to the American public and intentionally—intentionally—did not do their jobs because they knew the answers to the questions about the Steele dossier, its source network, and its veracity would fail and would destroy their investigation,” says Kash Patel.

Are we living in a ‘post-truth’ America?

“These political witch hunts and prosecutions are very real, whether it’s January 6 or otherwise,” says Kash.

We also discuss the next steps for Durham, whether any corrupt FBI agents will be prosecuted, and what viewers can expect on the next season of Kash’s Corner.

Correction: A previous version of this episode description misspelled the name of FBI agent Stephen Somma. Epoch Times regrets the error. 

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

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


Kash Patel:

Hey everybody, and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. If you can believe it, this is the last episode of season five. I certainly can’t. Jan and I will be back with you in Kash’s Corner after the midterms, but we do have an episode left to get to. Jan, what are we going to be talking about today?

Jan Jekielek:

In a way it’s a fitting topic. It is the end of the Danchenko trial. Possibly the last prosecution, if you believe the Wall Street Journal, that Durham is going to do as special counsel, possibly. Of course, Danchenko, as probably a lot of our viewers know, was found not guilty on four counts of lying. Let’s start there. What’s your reaction Kash?

Mr. Patel:

Well, a lot. Unlike the Sussmann case, which I have talked about before being jury nullification, where the jurors themselves have come out and said they were Clinton donors. They said themselves after the verdict in the Sussmann case that the government should never have brought this case. That’s a little different than the strategy utilized by the defense in the Danchenko case, and the information John Durham unveiled in the Danchenko case.

The biggest takeaway for me is that it’s unequivocal now that the world knows that James Comey lied to a federal court, lied to the American public, lied to Mueller and everybody else when he said that he and his FBI had verified the FISA application against President Donald Trump in his campaign. That’s the purpose of the law when you go before a federal court, especially the FISC, which I did many times when I was a national security prosecutor. The Attorney General, along with the director of the FBI, has to sign the FISA warrant application for the following purpose, to specify that it has been verified, that it is accurate, and that the information needed is credible.

But now thanks to John Durham and his prosecutions, we know that James Comey and his FBI agents actually intentionally blockaded information to attempt to corroborate the source, Christopher Steele and Danchenko and others, when they, the FBI, knew that that information would come back and contradict the credibility of Steele, and thus, vitiate James Comey’s ability to take this warrant to a federal court and say it has been certified.

This is an egregious violation of the law and due process. But as someone who is director of the FBI, for him to come in and politically target an individual on information they knew was trumped up is something that I think everyone has learned. The mainstream media won’t talk about it, and they can run away from it, but that’s not me saying it. That’s the FBI agents under Comey testifying in these trials, saying they had the opportunity to go and interview people who would have detracted from the credibility of the Steele dossier and the Danchenko reporting and other reporting on Charles Dolan. They were blocked by FBI leadership from ever doing so.

So, it’s a pretty stunning revelation for those who haven’t been following this information. And of course, James Comey will continue to lie, and he’ll come out there and say the Danchenko verdict shows that he didn’t lie. But it shows the exact opposite. Remember, the FBI wasn’t on trial in the Danchenko case, it was Danchenko, the source of the Steele dossier. And we learned a lot of other things, but I think that is the biggest takeaway.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay. So many things I want to say here. Number one, looking at Durham’s closing statement, it did seem a bit like the FBI was on trial.

Mr. Patel:

As a former public defender and federal public defender, I tried a lot of tough cases where the facts were completely against me. Let’s be clear, Danchenko lied to the FBI. His defense counsel all but admitted it. Danchenko lied about making up conversations he never had with Sergei Millian, who was supposedly a source for the Steele dossier. But we now know it was a total farce, because Danchenko made it up. Danchenko lied about his interactions with Charles Dolan, Hillary Clinton’s senior advisor, and about where this information came from, and that he drummed it up. Those were lies that happened in the middle of the Russiagate investigation.

But what his attorneys did, which is what I have done in the past, when you don’t have the facts and you have a very high profile case, and I’ve done this in narco-trafficking cases and murder cases when I was a defense counsel as a PD (public defender), you put the cops on trial. So they put the FBI on trial. I said it’s true that the FBI was not on trial, and they weren’t, as far as John Durham goes. The defense counsel’s move was a move that I’ve utilized at times in the past. It was shown by defense counsel that the FBI’s conduct was so egregious that the jury just said, “I don’t even want to deal with the facts of the case. I’m so ticked off at the FBI or the cops that we’re not going to believe anything in this case.”

Even John Durham’s presentation of the evidence was a hard needle to thread, because he was saying, “Let’s talk about the elephant in the room, the FBI.” He was prosecuting an FBI source for lying. At the same time, having FBI agents on the witness stand destroys the credibility of the FBI. And then, John Durham had to use the FBI’s other agents on a special counsel team to bring these charges.

He is basically saying, “The FBI I worked with is good. The FBI that did the Russiagate investigation is completely corrupt and criminal and this guy lied to them.” It’s a hard, hard, hard sell for a prosecutor to make that case when you have so much evidence of corruption. And I think that’s what the jury looked at. The defense counsel said, “Look, our client lied or maybe he misspoke,” or whatever the verbiage was the defense counsel used, “But look at what the rest of the cops were doing. Look at what all these other individuals were doing.” They wanted to go out there and corroborate this information, but their leadership blocked them from doing it.

Mr. Jekielek:

Through this trial Durham exposed a whole bunch of information, and a whole bunch of criminal conduct that needs to be followed up on, potentially by the DOJ. But at the same time, you’re saying through doing that he undermined his case, and the defense counsel used that.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. John Durham didn’t have any options. He had to go with the deck he had. It’s very hard as a prosecutor to say to a jury, “Yes, the FBI’s corrupt, especially when it comes to the Russiagate investigation, which is the most corrupt investigation ever perpetrated by the FBI themselves.” The credibility that you bear in court is very limited. John Durham tried to use that limited credibility, but I think his bigger play was to educate the world on what happened. Because so many people ran over the Russiagate investigation than I ran with Devin Nunes which exposed all this in the first place due to the disinformation campaigns being put on by the media. But the power of a federal prosecutor is his pleadings to the court, which are essentially under oath, saying under penalty of perjury, what I’m telling you is true.

On top of that, he had agents like Auten and Somma and Heide and others during the course of these cases come up there and say, “We had options to go and challenge the veracity of the Steele dossier, we knew it was false. James Comey and company, and McCabe and company on the seventh floor, and Peter Strzok said, “We’re not going to look at those options. We, the FBI, are not going to investigate possible gaps in our case, because all we care about is getting Donald Trump and getting that FISA warrant authorized. So, we’re going to stop the work we normally would have done.” 

You just have to think about it in a more agnostic context and say whatever investigation you’re talking about, bank robbery, homicide, drugs—the FBI is using a source network to do it. The FBI is aware before going to a federal court for a search warrant that that source network is corrupted and it’s peddling false information. Wouldn’t you want the FBI to go get that false information and corruption, before they took it to a federal court?

Then at least notify the federal officer, “Look, we relied on this guy, but he’s got all these problems. They knew… remember, I’ve said this in the past, the FBI knew, in this case, these government gangsters knew what questions not to ask, because they knew the answers to those questions would gut their case, and would defeat them at the FISA court, which was their ultimate goal. They carried that out to a T in this instance. That’s the biggest criminal conduct I’ve ever seen the FBI engage in. I share everybody’s frustration that no one’s been charged at the FBI for the very corruption that this jury let Igor Danchenko off on.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let me mention this. From what we learned, I recall there were at least two agents that actually try to investigate Charles Dolan, and maybe I’ll get you to tell me about the his significance in all of this. They tried, and then they were blocked by other agents from doing that. They both were highly aware that basically Dolan was a dossier source, a major dossier source. There were a number of revelations. One that jumps to mind is that there’s this kind of internal blocking.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, and that’s problematic for many reasons. You now have the corrupt FBI agents themselves saying they had investigative leads that would’ve added value to their investigation, but it wouldn’t have added value in the lanes they wanted. It would’ve detracted from their goal, which was to politically target a campaign they disagreed with. They intentionally stopped other field level agents from producing or working those lines of effort, because they knew the answer. They said, “Don’t even ask the question, because if you don’t ask the question, then we can feign later we didn’t know.” That is exactly what they’ve been doing for six years, saying, “We didn’t know, we didn’t know, we didn’t know.”

The biggest lesson, the biggest takeaway I’ve talked about is that now thanks to John Durham, we know definitively that James Comey, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok and all the others at the FBI, Thibault, Auten, and Somma lied to a federal court, lied to the American public and intentionally did not do their jobs. Because they knew the answers to the questions about the Steele dossier, its source network, and its veracity would fail and would destroy their investigation. Then, they would have no Crossfire Hurricane investigation to continue. 

We know from the text messages from Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page and so many others at the FBI that the only thing they cared about was getting Trump and doing whatever it takes, and using a source, Christopher Steele, who has personally admitted to the FBI that he wanted Donald Trump never to be president, and would do whatever he could to stop it.

These are the types of individuals they went to. Not to mention that Charles Dolan, a senior advisor for Hillary Clinton, was connected to Igor Danchenko directly, providing some of this “information” about the dossier and the Russiagate scandal, when he knew it was totally false. I don’t see how Americans can have any faith in this FBI anymore. 

That’s why calls for things like the former Church Committee are actually definitely valid. It’s going to take a major overhaul from these guys in Congress when the gavel flips to conduct some rigorous oversight, but to also retool the FBI and DOJ, so that it actually has credibility again. But that’s going to be a multi-year lift.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to reiterate this. There are at least a couple of agents that tried to investigate Dolan, who essentially was working for the Clinton campaign. But they were blocked in doing that by other agents, as if it was irrelevant.

Mr. Patel:

It sounds like it’s a play they ran repeatedly. We’ve talked about it extensively on how they had that option on Hunter Biden’s laptop, Thibault did too. Tony Bobulinski brought that to light and we discussed that in detail in an episode of Kash’s Corner a few weeks ago. They ran that same operation during the entire Russiagate investigation. These government gangsters knew the information was false, but they didn’t care. If that doesn’t upset any American, then you really have no business participating in the democratic process or our judicial system, because it’s supposedly the reason why our system of justice is better than everyone else’s in the world.

Mr. Jekielek:

I have to bring this up. I recently learned that in 2016 the Oxford English Dictionary Word of the Year was post-truth. I’m going to read the definition, because I thought it was kind of  a euphemism, but it is actually instructive; “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” I’m getting worried that in this post-truth world, jury pools may function this way.

Mr. Patel:

You’re probably right. I didn’t know that. Of course, you’re more dialed in on this stuff than I am. That goes along with a lot of the disinformation conversations we’ve had. The reason why this is coming to the forefront is because there’s so much false information out there that has been repeated for so many years by the likes of Adam Schiff and company that too many in the American public have ingested as the truth, when the sourcing that was saying it knew it to be false. 

We’ve shown that happened in Congress. We’ve shown that it has happened at the FBI, at the DOJ, at the intelligence community, and even at the DOD in past episodes of Kash’s Corner. It’s good that it’s a topic that is finally coming to the forefront of everyone’s conversation, but it’s tragic that we have to have that conversation in America, because those aren’t the types of scenarios that our judicial system was set up on.

It was those very scenarios that our judicial system was set to defeat. That’s why our founding fathers created all those rights in the Constitution. But those rights have been shredded, not by criminals on the street, but by criminals at the FBI and DOJ and other agencies. That’s why when I go around the country and talk to people, be it at rallies for President Trump or just other speaking engagements, so many times I hear over and over again, “I don’t have any faith in the FBI or DOJ.” 

These are people in communities across America. It’s because they don’t have the truth in front of them, or it’s because they were deprived of the truth along the way and they later found out institutions that they relied on to give them the truth were the ones that were lying to them.

Mr. Jekielek:

And then there’s the third option, and this one concerns me even more. Maybe some just don’t care with this post-truth, postmodern mentality. This is the thing that I’ve been struggling with. You mentioned that Comey has been revealed to have very obviously lied. I was actually shocked to discover that Mueller also seems to have lied, and frankly I wasn’t expecting to see that.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, it doesn’t surprise me. We had figured that out during Russiagate when Mueller took over the investigation. This is a guy who testified to Congress after his report was issued that he didn’t even bother looking at the Steele dossier. And you have to remember, James Comey is Mueller’s protege. James Comey purposely leaked classified information so that Bob Mueller would be made special counsel to oversee the very fraudulent investigation that his buddy James Comey ran. That is a temple of corruption in the town in which America has completely lost confidence in, not just in Congress, but in its executive branch agencies. Because they have politicized the law enforcement and national security apparatus to get Trump or get anyone associated with the MAGA movement, America first values, or conservative values. These political witch hunts and prosecutions are very real, whether it’s January 6th or otherwise. What is upsetting to people is the two-tier system of justice they have created.

We now live in a world, where every day in America in 2022, there is one system of justice if you are the James Comeys, Andy McCabes, Peter Strzoks of the world, or Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton, and Fiona Hill. And there’s another set of rules and justice in different courtrooms if you disagree with anything the above four mentioned peoples have said, or if you are a Trump loyalist or a America first person. I just didn’t think we’d ever get there, I really didn’t. I got text messages right after the verdict came in, because I was probably the last guy thinking even this jury in Virginia is going to get this one right. What I didn’t recall right away were my public defender days, saying, “When the corruption is that bad and you can show it, you can walk your client out the door at the courthouse.”

Mr. Jekielek:

So, you’re not expecting Comey or Mueller prosecutions based on these lies.

Mr. Patel:

Probably not. I don’t know what to expect from John Durham going from here. Is he going anywhere further? Nothing will happen I’m sure until after the midterms. Will there be an announcement on the reports? Will he have to testify? And then, here’s the other thing that we need to talk about. If John Durham doesn’t go any further, then we have to find out, is it because Merrick Garland told him he could not? Because the only person that can tell John Durham not to bring a prosecution is the Attorney General who oversees him, Merrick Garland. I think that’s a conflict of interest, because John Durham is investigating Merrick Garland and his cronies for the corruption that they have committed and the coverup by the likes of Chris Wray, who works for Merrick Garland, who’s the director of the FBI. So, when John Durham testifies, those questions have to be asked and answered.

More importantly, is this report that John Durham writes—and remember, it doesn’t have to be made public, it can only be made public if Merrick Garland allows it to be made public, and then if it is—will it be redacted? What’s going to be behind the redactions? Are we going to have to do this whole thing all over again, like we did in Russiagate, where the FBI releases reams of evidence after they say the evidence doesn’t exist, but then they go and redact 98 per cent of it? You’ve seen these documents and pages. So, is this the race they’re going to run again? Probably, because they’re going to try to run out the clock once we get past midterms, because they care more about the political cycle than accountability to the American people who they work for.

Mr. Jekielek:

At this point, what are the biggest questions left in your mind?

Mr. Patel:

Look, we know all the players and go back and watch our episodes. We’ve identified literally everyone, from the Jake Sullivans, the Fusion GPS’s, the Fiona Hills, and all these corrupt actors—Chris Wray, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Heide, Somma, Auten, Thibault—all of these individuals are now known by name. That’s a massive step forward in terms of the corruption they wielded. What I want to know is are they going to be prosecuted? And the bigger question is, if not, why not? It’s not like the evidence isn’t there. It’s not like I went and found it. John Durham showed us that evidence in his pleadings in the Kevin Clinesmith case, in the Sussman case, in the Danchenko case, and pled that before a federal judge saying, “These are my investigations, these are my findings.” And many of those FBI employees have admitted on the stand that they are under investigation.

Maybe we’ll see more whistleblowers coming forward to help expose that corruption. But will there just be no accountability like there was with Thibault, who walked out of the FBI after 31 years or however long it was and said that he is just going to retire early all of a sudden and there’ll be no harm in it? Will people be rewarded like Andy McCabe who went back, and this DOJ under Merrick Garland reinstated his pension, after Andy McCabe was caught lying and got fired for lying and leaking to the media as a deputy director of the FBI. He literally got his gun and badge back. Is that the type of accountability we’re going to see? And then he gets glorified in the mainstream media. These are the people that are on programs like MSNBC. One of the things that’s so disturbing to me is just this past week, Peter Strzok goes on MSNBC as a paid contributor and says 9/11 has nothing on January 6th.

Peter Strozk:

9/11 is nothing compared to January 6th.

Mr. Patel:

This is the very agent who led the counterintelligence investigations involving Hillarygate and the email scandal and Russiagate, who hated Donald Trump, who had no problems telling the world about it, was caught lying, was caught blockading an investigation, was caught corrupting the FBI and was caught basically conjuring up the biggest fraudulent criminal conspiracy perpetrated by FBI actors themselves, including him. He’s now on TV comparing January 6th to 9/11.

Mr. Jekielek:

Unbelievable, unbelievable. One thing that occurs to me, and I’m just thinking about loose threads here. I do recall that Durham did say that Auten was a subject of this special counsel investigation. I wonder what will happen with that.

Mr. Patel:

It was a number of people, I think it was Auten, and maybe I’m forgetting off the top of my head if it was Heide in the last trial, a number of FBI employees, analyst agents, and lawyers were subjects of either John Durham’s investigations, or subjects of FBI internal investigations for the Office of the Professional Responsibility. We’ve seen Chris Wray go to Capitol Hill and say there’s going to be no retribution or retaliation for people who blew the whistle on these folks for these types of corruptions. 

But we’ve also seen him basically lie to Congress, because when the likes of Agent Friend does become a whistleblower, he is very much retaliated against. He is suspended, his badge and gun are taken away from him, and he is taken off the streets. And this literally is a guy who has publicly said he did not vote for Donald Trump.

And so, there certainly is retribution against whistleblowers. But then you have the likes of Senator Grassley and Ron Johnson and Jim Jordan who have recently reported that they know there is corruption at the FBI, with something like as simple as the use of a private jet by Chris Wray. We now have a whole slew of whistleblowers that have come forward. 

We should post the article from the New York Post on this which shows Chris Wray taking a government jet, paid for by government taxpayer money, to holiday vacation homes around the country, instead of testifying before Congress. The question is, did he ever reimburse the federal government for it? What is likely to happen is that he’ll come in and say, “Oh, I forgot, here’s a check for the money I owe you.” But these are the types of individuals that we are relying on currently for accountability.

That’s why John Durham’s work is so important. That’s why I hope it continues, because the likes of the senators I named and congressmen I named are going to need help with these whistleblowers coming forward. We know Chris Wray’s word is completely meaningless when he says whistleblowers exposing waste, fraud and corruption at his FBI won’t be retaliated against, especially when the whistleblowers expose the waste, fraud and corruption of Chris Wray himself.

Mr. Jekielek:

Kash, I know a lot of our viewers, from looking at our comments, care very deeply about these trials that we’ve covered so extensively and about what’s been exposed. They want to see accountability and they’re worried they never will. That gets people feeling very dark about government and about the future. I don’t know what thoughts you have at this point.

Mr. Patel:

The accountability is the reason I left DOJ to go to Congress to conduct an oversight investigation in Russiagate. Our accountability is limited in Congress, but our investigation led to the firing or resignation of 17 DOJ and FBI employees, including Comey, McKay, Page, Strozk, Priestap, and so many others. So, that’s a form of accountability. It’s not the ideal piece of accountability, because when they broke the law, which all of those individuals did, and they were never prosecuted for it. That can’t happen unless John Durham is allowed to continue and or there’s a regime change at the DOJ and FBI, which is unlikely until at least 2024. And so, what I tell folks is you have to go out and read the documents. And I think more and more people are doing that. We put the documents out at Epoch Times all the time, especially on our show, and then on other shows as well. 

I’m talking about the DOJ and FBI’s own documents. I’m talking about the DOD’s documents. I’m talking about the IC’s documents. As these come in, as these whistleblowers come in, these are the types of documents that people need to go online and say, “Wait, was I lied to about Russiagate? Was I lied to about the corruption at the FBI? Did James Comey and Andy McCabe lie to the FISA court, and falsely certified a FISA warrant application?” They did. All those documents are currently available showing that by the FBI’s own writing on their own memorandums and the testimony that John Durham elicited from the likes of Auten and Heide and Samma, we now know that those things are definitely true. But the hard part is getting that message out there. Once you do, though, and you build a course which like we’re doing, then you force Congress to act, because that is the only way that you’re going to see any form of accountability.

We’ve seen by the overreach of the January 6th committee what a congressional subpoena can do and the authority it has. We’ve also seen what government agencies can do to ignore it, like they did during Russiagate when we issued 17 or 20-some odd subpoenas. They never told us about Danchenko and the million dollar bounty and the fact that he was on the government payroll as a six figure FBI source. All this information was withheld from the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

You just have to ask yourself this; what if that information was withheld from Adam Schiff as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee in the target of the investigation by someone in his universe? Do you think it would be quietly reported or not talked about? You have to always remind our audience of that. And yes, we are greatly appreciative that the live chats have been a lot of fun every Friday night when we get to hear from so many of our fans while the show’s playing. I think that’s a really cool feature. And yes, we do read all those. The message boards have been good, because they tell us where to take the show or what people are interested in. Because we don’t want to just report on what you and I think is interesting. We want to report on what they want to see, because they’re taking their time to come and listen to Kash’s Corner.

Mr. Jekielek:

We would like to get your comments on this episode in the comments section. We want to know what you want to hear about from Kash Patel, and maybe a little bit from Jan Jekielek. Next season, season six will start after the midterm elections. We’re going to take a breather for the next few weeks. So please, we read all the comments, And as Kash always says, and we look forward to getting them.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, I can’t believe it’s been five complete seasons. Thank you to our audience for paying attention to us. Thank you for watching, and thank you for making us such a popular show. But the reason Jan and I do it is to get the information out to you all. We appreciate you guys showing up week in and week out. We’ve got a few fun surprises in store for next season that might include the likes of Ted Nugent and John Rich himself. But stay tuned for that.

Mr. Jekielek:

Yes, absolutely. Shout out time. Let’s do it.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, the shout out. As everybody knows, last week I finally got Jan to Nashville in Tennessee, which is the home of my boot maker. The shout out this week goes to Jan’s new pair of cowboy boots from Lou Casey.

Mr. Jekielek:

Oh man.

Mr. Patel:

He finally got a pair.

Mr. Jekielek:

Do I have to?

Mr. Patel:

There they are.

Mr. Jekielek:

I guess I’ve got to do this.

Mr. Patel:

See, this is proof Jan that we listen to our audience and we listen to our live chat. Because for a year-plus now everyone’s been saying, “Kash has cowboy boots, why doesn’t Jan?” But now Jan does. So, actually, the shout out for this week is to Jan, the whole crew at Epoch Times and Epoch TV for making yet another season of Kash’s Corner so awesome. We will see you guys next month on Kash’s Corner season six.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Truth Social:


Read More
Related Videos