search icon
Live chat

Kash’s Corner: How the Jan. 6 Committee Buried Crucial Evidence; Twitter Files Expose Extensive Government Censorship Pressure

Two years on from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach, we revisit what really happened in the weeks and days leading up to January 6. Crucial evidence Kash Patel shared with the January 6 committee was omitted from the final report, and his deposition was only released in the final moments of the 117th Congress without any of the evidentiary exhibits he asked to be included, he says.

“I asked for the DoD timeline, the long version, the short version. I asked for the Capitol Police timeline. I asked for Mayor Bowser’s letter. I asked for relevant media articles that they were citing about me to be included into the record. They excluded all of it,” says Patel.

We also discuss the protracted election for House Speaker and the recent Twitter Files, published by Matt Taibbi, detailing the overwhelming number of requests to censor that flooded into Twitter from various government sectors, including the FBI, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the office of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “Requests arrived and were escalated from all over: from Treasury, the NSA, virtually every state, the HHS, from the FBI and DHS, and more,” Taibbi writes. Many were honored.

REFERENCES:

Kash Patel’s deposition

Mayor Muriel Bowser’s letter refusing additional National Guardsmen

Department of Defense Jan. 6 Timeline

Capitol Police Jan. 6 Timeline

IG Report on Jan. 6

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Kash Patel:

Hey everybody and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. Jan, I know we’ve got a myriad of topics to talk about today. Where do you want to start?

Jan Jekielek:

We’ve got three. We need to put the January 6 Select Committee to bed. In the end they did publish your testimony, the first deposition given, in the last possible final moments. We want to look that over and pull out some of the things that you weren’t able to talk about earlier.

We also need to look at the next batch of the Twitter Files that Matt Taibbi just published as we’re filming. They focus on Russiagate, so we have to do that. Right now, we’ve got the Capitol on screen behind you.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, that’s right.

Mr. Jekielek:

We’re in the throes of the fifth vote for Speaker of the House right now, and that is something that hasn’t happened in quite some time. So, let’s discuss all this.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, that’s quite the slate. Let’s remind our audience we are literally taping this show while they are voting behind us for the next Speaker of the House, and we are also going to be airing the show on January 6th, 2023. So, it seems only appropriate that we cover those topics. And of course, we always cover everything that leads to Russiagate.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s jump in on the Jan. 6th stuff to start. Okay? You have about 160 pages of depositions.

Mr. Patel:

It’s finally out, Jan!

Mr. Jekielek:

The number one thing I noticed is that there really isn’t any substantive use of your deposition in the 845-page report, at least that I’m aware of. I welcome our viewers to point out otherwise. What are your thoughts?

Mr. Patel:

Yes. I was the first guy subpoenaed by the January 6 Committee. That deposition was completed a year ago, and me and my team have been demanding that transcript’s release for that entire year on a monthly, weekly, and daily basis. It was the last transcript release at the eleventh hour, literally before the lights went out in the 117th Congress. They had to put it out, otherwise they would’ve broken their own rules.

But I think they violated their own rules anyway. In the transcript itself, in the communications my lawyers have had with the January 6 Committee, they promised in writing pursuant to the House rules that these transcripts would be released. And not just these, but also the important evidentiary exhibits that were attached to the transcript.

For those viewers that don’t know, what’s an exhibit? It’s just a piece of evidence. When you go into a deposition, all it is a Q and A. But sometimes you want to ask, “What about this deposition? What about this article? How about this timeline from the government, from the FBI, or from the Capitol Police? Do you want to talk about that?” Instead of talking about it in the abstract, you can enter the exhibits, like you do in a courtroom, into the record in the transcript.

We entered about nine exhibits, give or take, and the rules of the House and the Committee and the Congress and the Democrats say either side can enter anything they want into the record and it automatically becomes part of the record and is released when the transcript is actually released. No surprise, the January 6 Select Committee broke its rules, broke the House rules, and broke its commitment not just orally, but also in writing to my legal team by saying the exhibits would be included. They excluded every single exhibit.

Now you have to ask, why did they exclude exhibits that I didn’t even create? It’s not like I was saying, “Here’s a summary of my mind. Put that into the record.” I asked for the DOD timeline, the long version and the short version. I asked for the Capitol Police timeline. I asked for Mayor Bowser’s letter. I asked for relevant media articles that they were citing about me to be included into the record. They excluded all of it.

Many of our viewers know that throughout the Kash’s Corner episodes that they’ve seen throughout the last year or so, the whole point of that is everybody should be asking why. Why is it a select committee with the mandate to investigate January 6th, excluded directly relevant evidence to the very questions they were looking to answer? Why was there a security failure? Did the DOD act properly? What was your role in that? Who did you speak with? Is there proof of it? All those questions and more are answered.

Shockingly, the Committee also failed to include what I think is the primary exhibit, the Biden DOD Inspector General Report. Not the Trump IG report on DOD. The Biden Inspector General for the Department of Defense issued a lengthy report on our DOD’s actions leading up to and on January 6th. In summary it said, “You, me, the Secretary of Defense, did not delay, but acted swiftly and appropriately in the events leading up to and on January 6th in regards to security and the deployment and authorization of the National Guard.” That’s it. That is the result of their investigation. We now know why my transcript was excluded. I gave them the hard truths that they didn’t want the answers to, because they didn’t fit their political narrative.

We told them on this show and in the Committee that Donald Trump did authorize 20,000 National Guard two days before, and that Nancy Pelosi and Mayor Bowser refused that authorization, and that the law requires a presidential authorization and a request by the governing authority, both Bowser and Pelosi in DC, to deploy National Guard. The Supreme Court and the law is crystal clear, and I agree with it 100 per cent. It’s so that the military can’t be unilaterally deployed in the United States of America. You never want that. That’s the whole point.

These politicians get in the way of providing actual oversight to the American people. I’ve always said, and I think you have too, January 6th is an event we should examine, What happened? Why did it happen? Were there failures? Can we prevent it? Who failed to act? Who acted appropriately? And we have answers to almost none of it. All we got were empty headlines and political rhetoric.

And so to me, it’s not shocking, Jan, that the House Select Committee on January 6th violated the rules of the House, their own rules, their own written promises to me and my team in writing about my transcript and the exhibits. But the only thing I ask our audience is to question why. And then, pick up a few pages of it and read it and ask yourself how much of that six-hour interrogation that I withstood was actually about January 6th?

Mr. Jekielek:

We’re going to touch on that in a moment. But there were just over 300 National Guardsmen, that were requested by Mayor Bowser, right?

Mr. Patel:

That’s a great point. That’s one that we talked about and it’s in her letter. Mayor Bowser requested a few hundred National Guardsmen and Women as is customary leading up to a presidential transition. What we went back to her with and said was, “Ma’am, there seems to be domestic intelligence available that there could be a large number of people here, tens of thousands of people, and the President has authorized up to 20,000 National Guard, so that you as the Mayor can have more assistance, more security posture, and more traffic assistance.” And she flat out said in her letter, which is available, “No.”

And so, that’s the difference. If anyone out there in the mainstream media says, “Well, Mayor Bowser did request it,” that’s a false narrative. Requesting a few hundred troops weeks before January 6th has nothing to do with the President’s authorization of 20,000 National Guardsmen that she  turned down.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s a couple of things that I can think of right now, as you were saying this. Number one, in this deposition there was apparently some intelligence from the FBI that you say you never received.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. This is why these committees could serve a valuable oversight function. We at the Department of Defense do not have a domestic intelligence mandate. We are the no-fail national security mission in the United States of America; protect the border and everything going on overseas. Similarly, the CIA and NSA do not collect domestically by law. But the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, that is their job to collect domestic intelligence.

What was shocking for me to learn was that the Director of the FBI, Chris Wray, had a specific report, which is now public. But that document was never shared, to the best of my knowledge, with the Secretary of Defense or me, as the Chief of Staff for the Department of Defense, which means it wasn’t shared with anybody at DOD.

I don’t think I’ve said this, but had that document entered our offices, it would’ve monumentally changed the tactical operations we would’ve recommended going forward. We would have said, “Look, we actually have domestic intelligence from our domestic intelligence agency that says X. We now need to go back and negotiate with Speaker Pelosi at the time, and Mayor Bowser, so that we can install a no climb fence—which they refused—and so that we could have FBI personnel in uniform surrounding the Capitol. We could have done a plethora of things, but none of those options were considered because this report from the FBI was withheld. And that’s a question Chris Wray needs to answer.

Mr. Jekielek:

It’s almost unimaginable that such a report would be withheld, given just the basic, normal functioning of these agencies.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. You would think the heads of agencies, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the FBI, and all these other agencies would talk to each other. Because I know from my time there, we did so with high level situations. And for some reason, this report never made it from the Attorney General at DOJ over to the Sec Def’s office. Because at the end of the day, the FBI Director reports the DOJ.

But that shouldn’t subvert or bury the total intelligence failure on the street from the FBI and DHS. How did they not have the intelligence, if Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks boarded up their windows a week before January 6th? Are we to believe, as the United States of America, that a coffee shop and a donut shop has a better intelligence apparatus than the United States, FBI and DHS?

What they based those decisions on, and this is what we found out later, was social media. Why wasn’t the FBI scouring social media? And as we’ve seen in so many of the January 6th prosecutions, the FBI and DOJ are now using social media against defendants charged with crimes on January 6th to say, “We have been planning this event for X, Y, and Z. This is who we planned it with. This is who we talked to.”

Why is it that they waited till afterwards to utilize that readily, freely available data to go in and secure the complex for January 6th? These are questions that the January 6 Committee should have answered and they didn’t, because they knew the answers would not fit their political narrative.

Mr. Jekielek:

I’m thinking of two things. First of all, referenced in your deposition, President Trump authorized 10,000 to 20,000 National Guard, who were requested for a reason. There was a sense that something was happening, at least with a lot of people. There was some kind of intelligence, even if it wasn’t from the FBI, that there was a big event happening and that it should be secured.

Mr. Patel:

You’re right. It’s two separate things. One, it merits an investigation as to why that report was not widely shared in a timely fashion. And two, it’s not like that there wasn’t other intelligence available to those folks around them. One of the things I give President Trump credit for in terms of these national security situations has been his instincts. I’ve been around him. I was in the Situation Room when we did the Baghdadi raid. I’ve seen him conduct some of the most sensitive hostage rescue operations that we have ever done. I’ve seen his instincts in play. And this was just another example.

He had been getting the presidential daily briefings and talking to his cabinet. And of course, President Trump was a voracious reader and consumer of social media. Wherever he was seeing whatever he was seeing, he said, “Just so you don’t have to come back to me, and in case this happens, I don’t want to delay. I, as the Commander in Chief, am authorizing up to 10 to 20,000 National Guardsmen and Women.”

That is the one thing that you will recall, and our audience will recall it was like a huge fight. When I first said that before my deposition, because I was saying it publicly in the media and in my deposition and thereafter, it was billed as fake news. But we now know it was the absolute truth that the January 6 Committee wanted to bury, because this helped President Trump. It was the truth. But the narrative they wanted was to depict him as a usurper or somebody who was engaged in a coup, which we’ve talked about extensively. That was factually impossible, but that truth wasn’t advanced.

They just had a predetermined outcome. “This is the conclusion we want, and if you answer something that doesn’t advance that, we are going to ignore it and exclude it. We are going to deny the American public the ability to learn the truth,” which is a failure of Congressional constitutional oversight.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to flag a few things that I noticed in there. At one point you say something like, “One of the biggest take-homes was that there was a need to have no arms or no equipment on any of the National Guard that were actually deployed.” Why was this such an important thing to mention in here?

Mr. Patel:

Yes, that’s a great point. People think military and they think armed personnel, because they think of our guys and gals deployed overseas in the fashion that you see them in TV and movies.

What happens in a domestic situation, Jan, is our law enforcement is the domestic protection service, not our military. But because there are instances, like the Super Bowl, a marathon, a large scale parade, or a peaceful protest that require more security than the local police department or the state police are able to handle. In thinking of ways to provide for that gap, the United States, the Supreme Court has allowed an exception for the use of the military. They said domestically, you can use the military for the security augmentation of local law enforcement if requested by the local governor or mayor. And the President authorized this.

But the specific underlying connotation there was that we’re not going to send you in armed. We’re going to put you in uniform. Most of the time you see these folks, if anyone’s been to a large sporting event or a large parade, they see the military and they’re wearing the bright traffic visors, because they’re helping direct traffic. That’s the mandate.

We didn’t want to give off an image in downtown DC or wherever we deploy National Guardsmen and Women, that it was an active war zone. That’s not the purpose of the National Guard. Their mission is wholly separate and different from the men and women who engage in warfare overseas. That’s the distinction that the Supreme Court laid out in Posse Comitatus.

It’s a great point. Why should most Americans know it? I was hoping that, as a result of January 6th, a lot of people would know it, and understand why we didn’t have tanks rolling down the street. That probably would have been unlawful, but also insane, for lack of a better word, to turn downtown DC into downtown Kandahar.

Mr. Jekielek:

How did that play out when the request did come in?

Mr. Patel:

Pursuant to the timeline, the request from Mayor Bowser and Pelosi finally came in later in the afternoon on January 6th. But you have to remember, Jan, the National Guardsmen and Women don’t work at the Pentagon 24/7. They are doctors, they are lawyers, they have other jobs all over the United States of America. We have to go get them, we have to train them, we have to fly them in, and then we have to what we call kit them up and deploy them pursuant to the rules that have been agreed upon between Mayor Bowser, Pelosi, the President, and the Sec Def.

In this specific instance, negotiations went on and the right decision was made that we would not arm our National Guardsmen and Women. That was law enforcement’s priority and that they should be armed. The federal law enforcement and state police should be armed, not us.

The shocking thing that came out was that we heard Speaker Pelosi and others scream through the telephone, “We want tanks. Where are the tanks? Where are the crew-served weapons?” What’s a crew-served weapon? If you’ve ever watched a military movie, it means that it takes multiple members of a crew to operate it, i.e. a machine gun on top of a car, a belt -fed machine gun as we call it.

Our response was simply, “Madam Speaker, we are not bringing tanks to the District of Columbia and we are not bringing crew-served weapons down the streets.” It was wholly unnecessary. At that point, we knew that their political motivation was to have either pictures to advance the narrative that this was somehow a war zone, which we were not going to participate in.

Finally, we got them to agree that there would be a place, a central node, where we would have certain armaments, where if it went totally sideways and bad, we could go and get them. But our men and women who were dressed as National Guardsmen would not be armed.

To this day, I still think this was the right decision. There was no need for it. A show of force like that is not necessary in my opinion. That’s why there has to be an agreement between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the requesting agency as to how the National Guard is to be deployed. In my recollection, the prime purpose was to assist with traffic control and crowd control. You don’t need weapons for that.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s another thing in this deposition, and you spent quite a bit of time on it. You’re pushing back. They’re interested in this memo that you described which may or may not have existed, and they’re very interested in the withdrawal from Afghanistan. You’re basically saying, “This isn’t the jurisdiction. I’m not using the right language of this committee here. This isn’t what it was set for.” And then, there’s a whole big long discussion. They’re very interested in that. What was this all about? Why was there this discussion in the first place?

Mr. Patel:

My take on it, Jan, is pretty simple. If this committee wanted to find out the truth about January 6th, they would’ve spent six hours interrogating me about January 6th. But if you look at the deposition and you go by the page volume, I would say maybe 40 per cent was on January 6th-related matters, and 60 per cent was on Afghanistan memos that had nothing to do with January 6th, President Trump, or it was some other matter from my past relating to Russiagate.

That just showed me that all this committee cared about was setting up perjury traps and looking for political ammunition, not the facts. Because the facts could have been got to them by me very quickly in a very cordial fashion. I told them flat out, “I’m here to help you get the facts out on how the Department of Defense and our men and women acted in the days leading up to and on January 6th. It’s an important narrative that has to not only be scrutinized, but be provided to your committee to scrutinize, and ultimately provided to the Inspector General.”

When you start asking me about memorandums about Afghanistan and our withdrawal, I know the January 6 Select Committee was way off its mandate, because they didn’t want to hear the truth about our actions and President Trump’s authorization.

Mr. Jekielek:

At this point, maybe you have a few other thoughts to share. We want to put the January 6 Select Committee to bed, along with the commentary. Let’s be open to what this new Congress, assuming it elects a Speaker sometime in the not too distant future, should do with the results. A lot of the intel that was gathered is being redacted right now.

Mr. Patel:

I’m going to take those in order. I want to talk about one thing that I’ve actually never talked about before. If you’ve ever been in and around DC, you’ve seen these black fences. We call them no-climb fences, our standup perimeters around buildings, the White House, and Congress at times. Many, many people have seen them. The holes are very small in the linkage of the chains, so they’re literally no-climb, and they’re used for security posture regions for setback purposes.

One of the things that I thought the January 6 Committee would have wanted to know is why the FBI and DHS failed to put up a perimeter fence around the United States Capitol in the days leading up to January 6th. We’ve talked about how 10,000 men and women in uniform would have deterred a large crowd force. What about a standing no-climb fence that you literally cannot climb over? It’s the very basic in security posture setback approach. Somebody needs to ask Chris Wray, “Why didn’t you set that up?” Nancy Pelosi, “Why didn’t you ask for Capitol Police? You have the ability to call someone and get that.”

What ended up happening, Jan, was we, the DOD, were asking on January 6th when the request finally came in for the National Guard, “Where is your perimeter?” Because our job, again, was not to go inside the Capitol building and clear, as we say. That’s the job of the Capitol Police and FBI. We were to secure and establish a perimeter, which is what our expertise is, and assist local law enforcement along the way. You can’t establish a perimeter without a fence. When I started asking these questions, I got nowhere. People had no idea why it hadn’t been done. There wasn’t one around.

So, that night, as the Chief of Staff at DOD, I bought a no-climb fence from a company we found a couple states away, had it driven in, and had National Guardsmen and Women put that up ourselves in the late hours of January 6th. If we could do it that fast, why wasn’t it done before? What are they going to say? Optics? They didn’t have the intelligence? This committee never bothered to examine that question. And I haven’t seen anything in the recommendation saying, as simply as this, “Always have a no-climb fence installed when the security threat surpasses a certain level.”

It’s so simple and it’s not even that expensive and it doesn’t require a lot of manpower. This town does it all the time. That’s one of the most frustrating things about this committee and a highlight of its failure during its investigation. Now, what should this Congress do going forward?

Mr. Jekielek:

Just before you jump in, we’re all familiar with this fence, right?

Mr. Patel:

Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:

But it did create this feeling of militarization.

Mr. Patel:

Sure.

Mr. Jekielek:

It stayed up for a very, very long time, if I recall.

Mr. Patel:

Well, that’s a great point.

Mr. Jekielek:

Yes.

Mr. Patel:

I agree with you. When you put it up, it does feel militaristic and standoffish and takes away from the glamour of DC, or whatever town you’re using it in. So, we went back to Speaker Pelosi and the incoming administration and the Biden Administration and said, “Okay, we’re prepared to take this down.” And they said, “No, you have to keep it up until we tell you not to.” Now they wanted the optical appearance of this no-climb fence and a heavy security footprint.

That’s what I believe that this partisan political charade was about. They wanted the optics before January 6th with no security, and they wanted the optics after January 6th with heavy security to show that their political narrative was the one that was right. But when you look at the underlying facts, their narrative is defeated, and it’s widely known that they are the ones that required the fencing be kept up.

And now, they wanted thousands of National Guardsmen and Women to stay for weeks on end. I remember, because I had to look at the orders and sign off on them. And so, now they wanted downtown DC to look like a militarized zone—they being the Democrats who are in charge, and they being Mayor Bowser, who’s the Democratic Mayor in charge of DC.

Those are great questions that, to my understanding, were never asked of Pelosi, Bowser, or anyone else as to why there was the one optic before, and then, the separate optic after. It completely contradicts their narrative and the facts. That’s why, in my opinion, it was never discussed.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s jump into what should happen now.

Mr. Patel:

All of the questions that I’ve asked, which weren’t asked during by the January 6 Committee, need to be asked now of Chris Wray, Nancy Pelosi, Mayor Bowser, and other officials. We need to dive into why was there an intelligence failure? What happened to that intelligence report? Why wasn’t it shared widely with the cabinet secretaries? Why wasn’t there a meeting called? All those questions need to be asked, and they should also be bringing these people forth for testimony under oath in public.

The other thing that no one has really touched on right now are the actions, not just of the people who are arrested on January 6th, but the actions of the FBI’s confidential human sources. In my opinion, that needs to be the perennial investigation. Maybe I’m biased because of my law enforcement and national security background, but questions like, “Why did we have the equivalent of a Christopher Steele running around the compound of the United States Capitol on January 6th on behalf of the FBI?

Ray Epps literally said, “I orchestrated it,” when he was talking about the activities surrounding the Capitol building on January 6th. What do you mean he orchestrated it? Where is he? This guy was on the FBI’s most wanted list one day and gone the next? When FBI leadership was asked under oath in the United States Senate about Ray Epps, they refused to answer.

We need to know not just where our tax dollars went, but why was a domestic law enforcement agency allowed to implement multiple informants throughout the area on January 6th? How long ago did they start? Because they couldn’t just drop them in that day. We covered that extensively on a prior episode. Who authorized that? Who gave that order? How much were they paid?

All of these documents are at the FBI. All of this material, all of this information needs to be subpoenaed immediately by this Congress. At the end, we need to get people like Chris Wray under oath, Nancy Pelosi under oath, Mayor Bowser under oath to answer the tough questions that this committee never bothered to ask.

It’s shocking, I guess I shouldn’t say it’s shocking, but it’s funny and ironic and tragic at the same time that Adam Kinzinger, the former Congressman who, on his way out when asked about Ray Epps, said, “I see no evidence that Ray Epps was responsible for anything or that the FBI had anything to do with it.” That’s because he didn’t ask the question. He didn’t care to get the documentation and it didn’t advance the political narrative that he wanted to advance. That seems to be the only theme and takeaway from this January 6 Committee’s reporting. That’s why the new Congress going forward has a lot of work to do.

But I would caution the new Congress going forward that it shouldn’t focus solely on the events of January 6th. It should be a wider investigation of DOJ and FBI activity overall. Obviously, there’s all this stuff from the Twitter files, there’s the ongoing Russiagate stuff, there’s the Durham stuff, and there’s the problems with the intelligence community. Then, there’s the problem with the CCP, and Hunter Biden’s laptop. There’s so many investigations, and we’ve talked about it extensively, that need to happen once the Speaker is elected. But I do think a large portion of that can be folded into other investigations.

Mr. Jekielek:

It’s just so bizarre that we still don’t know what Ray Epps’s role in all of this was. If there was no role, then it would just be very, very easy to put this to rest.

Mr. Patel:

You nailed it. Look, as a former federal prosecutor who ran sources and informants, if the answer is, “This guy is not on our payroll and we don’t know him, and he did absolutely nothing for the United States government,” you come out hard and fast in your press op and say those things. But those things have never been said by this DOJ or FBI about Ray Epps.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s jump into the next Twitter File drop. Matt Taibbi, just last night came up with the most Russiagate-focused Twitter Files drop yet, by a significant margin. There’s some amazing stuff in here. We have Senate intel basically leaning on Twitter, basically saying there’s all this Russian disinformation activity. Twitter investigates, and it’s like Russia becomes this code word for getting stuff taken down. The whole thing is really, really disturbing.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, disturbing. You’re being nice. To me, it’s more like unlawful. It’s disturbing for the government to maybe censor one person’s specific threat about one specific subject one time. To me, it’s conspiratorial and unlawful for members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that work here that are supposed to provide constitutional oversight of our intelligence community and its apparatus not to say, “You as a group are not to participate in the unlawful censoring of free speech, and you as a group are not to conspire and get together. But instead say, ‘We need a certain political narrative advanced, so make sure the others are deafened and make sure this specific narrative is advanced and do whatever it takes to get that done.'”

To me, as a former federal prosecutor, that is conspiratorial. Look, I’ve always said that I’m glad these things are coming out, but this is just another example of what the new Congress needs to look at.

Mr. Jekielek:

Not to necessarily excuse Twitter here, but it seems like they’re being told, “If you don’t do as we say, you’re going to be hurt.” It’s, “Nudge nudge, wink wink.”

Mr. Patel:

And it’s no surprise now. We’ve been saying it forever. We know Twitter, pre-Elon Musk, was basically in bed with the Democratic Party in advancing anything to counter Trump and advancing anything that they wanted out there. We know the FBI met with Twitter, and we now know the Senate Intel committee was sending messages to Twitter.

We’re going to talk about our friend Adam Schiff and others sending similar messages to Twitter. There was a group-coordinated effort by multiple branches of the United States government telling Twitter what to do as a free speech company. How is that not the most alarming thing that any American could be talking about right now?

We keep peeling the onion back and getting a little more at a time, and a little more at a time. We’re getting into it more and more. But my question remains, and maybe this is something this Congress can answer; why did Twitter acquiesce?

We know part of the reason. They had people like Vijaya Gadde and Yoel Roth and company who hated Donald Trump and wanted to be famous with the likes of Adam Schiff and company. They just said, “Yes, yes, yes.” We had James Baker calling the balls and strikes over there, the guy who basically authored the Russiagate narrative. So, we know part of the reason.

But as I’ve always said, from my days as a public defender, just follow the money. Are you telling me that Twitter didn’t have multi-million, if not billion-dollar contracts with agencies and departments in the United States government? If not, what role did the Senate Intelligence Committee have in executing an oversight role of a free speech media platform? It’s completely outside their mandate. There are wholly separate committees in Congress that look at institutions like Twitter.

The question is, and I still will bet my bottom dollar that you will see not just this one $3 million contract that came out a couple weeks ago between the FBI and Twitter, you will see scores of contracts between the intelligence community and Twitter and Facebook and YouTube. You will see scores of contracts and taxpayer dollars going to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube from the likes of FBI, and from the likes of DHS.

We need to get to the bottom of that. That documentation exists. You can’t hide money, and this Congress needs to go pull the bank records of Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and the other companies and then demand testimony from the people involved on both sides.

Mr. Jekielek:

You alluded to this message being sent from Adam Schiff’s office to Twitter where they’re looking to take down Paul Sperry’s account. Twitter responds back and they say, “We don’t do that.” However, down the line, Paul Sperry’s account indeed is taken down.

Mr. Patel:

They acquiesced.

Mr. Jekielek:

Yes.

Mr. Patel:

Just think of it, Jan.

Mr. Jekielek:

But there is coercion. Listen, I have to say this. These are the most powerful legislative bodies in the country. Isn’t there a level of coercion here?

Mr. Patel:

That’s exactly why I used the word conspiratorial when you said this was disturbing. No, this is conspiratorial. It’s not just that it’s the most powerful legislative bodies. It’s one of the most powerful people in government, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, a member of the Gang of Eight, who is responsible for the most secret affairs of the United States of America and overseeing and funding our intelligence apparatus. He is literally taking the time to email Twitter and say, “I, as the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, do not want that out on your platform. Do as I say.” It’s nothing short of conspiratorial.

The arrogance is what may be disturbing. The arrogance of these people to say, “We can do this. We’re never going to get caught.” It’s like the FBI in Russiagate. “But we’ll write it down ourselves and we’ll send the emails,” just like I’ve been saying the whole time. These people’s arrogance is what gets them caught. It’s the best evidence of their corruption and criminality, which is why I’m still waiting for the rest of the documentation to come out.

But the Adam Schiff example, just think of it. You had the Senate Intel Committee doing it, you had the House Intelligence Committee doing it, both engaging with Twitter on the same issue. The one issue that we’re talking about now, that’s the one we’ve caught them on. What about all the rest?

Like you said, at first Twitter did the right thing and said no, but then they acquiesced, and they gave in. Why did they do that? It’s not like they had new information. They were originally on and have always been on the same mind path and same political mindset as these people, and they basically became an arm of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Jekielek:

One of the things that Taibbi basically seems to trace in here is the interesting timing between requests to Twitter, and then bad publicity for Twitter coming out in corporate media.

Again, not to excuse Twitter entirely here, but there is pressure being applied. It appears there is a kind of pressure being applied to them. And yes, they acquiesced in the end. And yes, there’s obviously ideological alignment and we’ve seen that in some of the other drops, but they didn’t roll over. That’s not what I see in this material. I feel like there was something more happening.

Mr. Patel:

Because we are looking at one instance, that is an approach that you can take based on your analysis of this one instance. When you start stacking the Twitter Files together and the things that we know and the things that we don’t know, you’ll see that this was more just of a game. “We said yes to your eight other things. But on this one we’re going to say no for now.”

We’ve seen even James Baker had to be shut down on one occasion by Yoel Roth, as we talked about on our prior show, about censoring some material. But they said yes to the other 99 things that we know James Baker was involved with when it came to censoring Hunter Biden’s laptop and anything about Russiagate and anything that was pro-Donald Trump. We’ve seen their engagements. We’ve seen the FBI and DOJ stood up an election task force of 80 agents that met with Twitter and Facebook on a weekly basis to talk about election censorship.

We know this documentation exists, and so I will not let Twitter off the hook for one instance where they may have gotten it right for a second-and-a-half, when the other 99 fall flat on their face.

Mr. Jekielek:

To your point, on the election side of things, I pulled this quote, and this is one of the last tweets in the thread. Matt basically says, “By the weeks before the election in 2020, Twitter was so confused by the various streams of incoming requests, staffers had to ask the FBI which was which.” So no, the point was that right around…

Mr. Patel:

It’s not funny. It’s not funny, I know.

Mr. Jekielek:

…right around the election time, Twitter had trouble dealing with the volume of requests for censorship.

Mr. Patel:

Just think of that, Jan. And I know I laughed, because at this point, we’re so far past corruption and criminality that almost the only thing you can do is laugh. They didn’t have the manpower to digest and analyze everything that was incoming. That is maybe one of the most shocking things I’ve heard to come out of the Twitter Files, because it shows you the volume that we’re talking about, and it’s what I intimated at earlier. But if the company itself is admitting that this happened on such a massive scale, then where’s the massive documentation supporting that?

Mr. Jekielek:

The countries that are enemies of the United States, most notably communist China, which also appears in this thread, do run active disinformation campaigns, and Twitter is charged with taking down one of these. The problem I see is that you end up in this situation where there’s legitimate reason to take down these botnets, to take down these inauthentic activities designed to influence Americans or seed chaos. But that is mixed together with political intent here stateside, and it just creates this terrible mess.

Mr. Patel:

It’s more than just a mess, Jan. You’re right. There is only limited bandwidth. There’s only limited manpower. You can’t do everything. Algorithms can’t solve what men and women looking at a problem set can do, in terms of everything.

I’ll analogize the following, and we talked about this before. When Chris Wray went to Congress, I believe he lied by saying domestic violence extremism is on the rise. Because his agency, the FBI, had falsely padded statistics and pulled agents off the field to specifically take their investigations and call them domestic violent extremist investigations, so the statistics would go up to support Chris Wray’s bogus testimony. What happened was FBI field agents were taken off the street crimes, taken off looking at people who were hurting children, taken off people who were robbing banks, and taken off people who were committing wire fraud.

It’s the same thing here. With all this incoming, Twitter, as you said, had a department or a group of people responsible for flagging the CCP and their incursions. What about Russia? What about Iran? What about North Korea? All these folks are coming in attacking America. That’s what they want to do. That’s their job. What our law enforcement should have made priority one is working in concert with Twitter and having a set of law enforcement agents at the FBI working together to defeat that national security priority.

Instead, what do we find out? They had pulled agents off that beat, and stacked them into an election task force and on a weekly basis had them work with Twitter, Facebook and other companies. They pulled them off this critical mandate—actually, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone else say it, Jan—about the infiltrations that we know go on from the CCP, from Russia, from Iran, and interfere in not just our election matters, but also in other policy-shaping matters in a large scale way.

You areable to  look right and focus right, but these guys just walked out on the left.

Mr. Jekielek:

There was a recent Twitter space where Matt Taibbi was in there with Hans Mahncke, one of our columnists and a “Russiagate scholar.”

Mr. Patel:

Great reporter.

Mr. Jekielek:

Basically, he talks about how he can access these things. He has to go to San Francisco. He has full access, but he can only do keyword queries.

The bottom line is, I’m going to go back to what we’ve been saying every time, why not unleash #UnleashTheSleuths? Actually, with a lot of these folks were in this Twitter space with Matt last night, these are the people that would love to get the entirety of the files and dig through and figure out all sorts of things that none of us even fully imagine yet.

Mr. Patel:

But I’ll analogize for you. Look, it’s not a knock on Taibbi or anyone else there, but if the way he’s accessing this information, he’s sitting in front of a computer and he has to input what he wants to look for, which means he has to be the expert on FBI corruption, on confidential human source networks, on following the money, on banking transactions, on where to look in emails or memos, and on where to look on the FBI side. And he, Matt Taibbi, is not an expert in those things.

It’s like sitting me in front of the FTX computer and saying, “Kash, I need you to go investigate Blank-Friedman.” I would need to bring in 10 people to coach me. I could do the investigation, but I would need 10 experts to tell me, “Okay, how does the banking work? How does a wire transfer system work?” I’ve run fraud cases, but that doesn’t make me the expert.

And that’s the best analogy I can give to sort of showcase for our audience why I think there are so many shortcomings in what we’re seeing. Because this is a limited access and it’s a limited distribution. It’s just a behemoth of an investigation for one, two, three, four people to take on sitting in front of a computer punching in keywords. You cannot uncode the Twitter conspiracy with the FBI by doing a Google keyword search. It is just ridiculous.

I’ve said it before, and I’ve called on Elon, I don’t know the guy, but open it up. Allow other people who are pros to assist in the matter. If you want full transparency, stop giving us limited access.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s jump into what’s happening in the building on the screen behind you.

Mr. Patel:

I don’t know if we have enough time in the day for that one, Jan.

Mr. Jekielek:

No, we don’t. There may be a Speaker by the time we premiere on Friday. But this is unprecedented. I think there’s been five votes now. How do you view this?

Mr. Patel:

Yes, it hasn’t happened in 100 years, but let’s put some window dressing on all this. One, anyone in America who’s a United States citizen can become Speaker of the House. You do not have to be a sitting member of Congress to become speaker of the House.

Mr. Jekielek:

Which is something that non-Americans would not necessarily know. Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Patel:

If you weren’t a Canadian citizen, Jan, I would be nominating you right now and we’d be walking across the street. But in all seriousness, you’ve seen on social media and with a lot of other banter out there, why doesn’t Trump become the Speaker of the House? Why doesn’t so-and-so become Speaker of the House? It’s not a question of they procedurally cannot. That’s not the question. It’s just, would they do it? Anyone can become Speaker of the House.

What you have going on over there is that you need to get to 218, that’s the long and short of it. You need a majority to get the Speakership. And Kevin McCarthy is coming up around 201 votes every time there’s a vote for Speaker, and there’s been five over the last few days. As you said, we are literally filming this while the sixth vote is going down. There may be a decision by Friday, and there may not be. What happens going forward?

Math has never been my strong suit, but as of right now, there are five hardcore GOP holdouts that say they will not vote for Kevin McCarthy to be Speaker. Okay. Let’s do the simple math. 222 seats are how many seats the Republicans in this new Congress hold, minus five equals 217. That’s not 218. So, somebody’s going to have to blink.

You can watch the political talking heads, you can watch whatever show or podcast or whatever you want to listen to, and they’ll say, “Oh, it’s their fault. No, it’s their fault.” At the end of the day, the reason it hasn’t gotten to this level before, and I always go to my friend Devin Nunes for some political education because it’s not my forte, politics. He said, “The reason we live in a representative democracy is because we the people get to elect our representatives. Then our representatives come to DC and do the work under the rules of the House.”

The rules of the House say once the newly elected Republican majority gets together before their term begins, they have this thing called the conference. In that conference, Kevin McCarthy was elected the Speaker basically by a majority vote, not by the 218, but that’s not what those rules require. Now, we’re really getting into the nitty gritty of the rules. But what Devin was trying to tell me was the process has worked for the last 100 years and it should be working today because that conference’s decision should be the one that stands.

I’m not saying Devin’s advocating for that or not, and I’m not saying I’m advocating for that or not. What I’m saying for our audience is this is how it has worked in the past and this is why we are here where we are today talking about it. And right now there is no Speaker of the House.

How’s it going to go, Jan? I don’t know. Your bet is as good as mine. Could they bring in another candidate, another member of the House, to be speaker? Yes. Could the Republicans overplay their hand? Could they, the majority, say, “We’re going for Kevin McCarthy, or we’re going bust”? And by bust they mean they could float another moderate Democratic candidate.

So Jan, let’s not forget there’s 222 Republicans, but there’s 213 Democrats. This makes up the 435 members of the House. That’s the total number of House members. That doesn’t change. But what changes is the division.

The Democrats aren’t really far off from getting to 222, they just need another nine votes. The Republicans need less, they just need four. There could be this crazy thing that happens where a consensus candidate, a coalition government comes to pass and somebody that nobody thought was going to be put up for Speaker is put up for Speaker. These are what people say could happen if the Republicans overplay their hand.

Now, you’ll hear from strong factions in the Republican Party, certain folks who are voting against Kevin McCarthy to say, “No, we want more concessions. We want more chairmanship,” whatever it is they want. Right now they have said publicly that they are not changing their vote. And Kevin McCarthy has publicly said that he is not going to stop running for Speaker of the House. So, we’re kind of at an impasse. Something’s going to have to happen.

But here’s the scary part, Jan. During the Civil War, there were 130-some votes for Speaker of the house. Now granted, we were in a time of war and there were a lot of other things going on that took precedence over this, and we are currently on the fifth voting cycle. There’s no rule in Congress that says there can only be X amount.

The problem is with whoever you want to be Speaker or whoever you don’t want to be Speaker, putting that aside, the work of the United States Congress does not start until a Speaker is elected. That means none of the investigations you and I talked about can start. None of the subpoenas that we want to go out can be sent out. None of the budgeting process can start. None of the financial commitments that the departments and agencies need to be held to so this Congress can hold them accountable can begin. Because there’s no Speaker, there’s no chairmen or women, there’s no heads of committees, and there’s no Congress as we know it operating.

That’s the loss. That’s why President Trump came out and said, “Take the win. Let the Congress begin doing its work. In his Truth Social post he said, “Kevin has earned or will do a good job as Speaker.”

He’s saying, “We the Republicans have retired Nancy Pelosi. Let’s put our mandate forward and show the American people what we can do, what oversight investigations we can do, and how we can get the budget under control. What can we do about the border?” We haven’t even talked about Fauci and COVID and China and COVID origins and things like that. What about the CCP? There’s supposedly a new committee to take on China, which you and I, and almost everyone we know are massively in favor of, but none of that can start until there’s a Speaker of the House.

So, I don’t know how it’s going to play out. I guess when we play this episode on Friday, maybe we’ll have a Speaker, maybe we won’t. Maybe another candidate will be dropped in that’s not currently a member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Jekielek:

Which has never happened before, as I understand it.

Mr. Patel:

I am not the congressional expert, but having worked there, I have asked around and I couldn’t find anyone that knew that that had ever actually occurred before.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s see what happens. It’s time for our shout-out.

Mr. Patel:

Indeed, Jan. This week’s shout-out goes to my old friend, Adelaida Carantes in Miami, Florida. I miss our times together having dinner with my godparents and you down in South Florida. I hope you and Ray and the kids are doing really well. I’m told you are a huge fan of Kash’s Corner, which is so cool to hear these many years down the road.

I wish you guys a very happy New Year and thanks to everybody who participated in our live chats on a weekly basis. They’re growing exponentially, and Jan and I love answering questions in real time from our audience. We look forward to seeing you next week on Kash’s Corner.

Read More
Popular
Related Videos