search icon

Kash’s Corner: Hunter Biden Laptop Disinformation; Clinton Campaign and DNC Fined for Breaking Law with Dossier Payments

Eighteen months since the New York Post originally broke the story, the infamous Hunter Biden laptop is back in the limelight after the Washington Post and New York Times report that they’ve verified thousands of emails from the laptop.

At the time, dozens of high-level intelligence community officials—including a former director of national intelligence and three former directors of the CIA—signed a letter claiming the emails looked like Russian disinformation. It was right in the midst of a heated election cycle.

Fast forward to this week, the assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, Bryan Vorndran, testified under oath that he did not know the location of the laptop, which had been seized by the FBI in 2019.

Also, this week the Washington Examiner broke the story that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has fined the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign for secretly funneling money to ex-British spy Christopher Steele for the creation of the Steele dossier. The DNC and the Clinton campaign are not contesting the fine.

Kash Patel gives us his take on what’s going on.


Kash Patel: Hey, everybody, and welcome back to Kash’s Corner.

Jan Jekielek: Well, Kash, today in the news, we have “The Washington Post” and “The New York Times,” having verified the Hunter Biden laptop, at least a lot of emails on the Hunter Biden laptop, and ones that we already knew were real 18 months ago or so. And the second thing is, I’m going to read a headline and this just came up today. 

“Scoop. FEC”, that’s the Federal Elections Commission, “fines DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax.”

Mr. Patel: Whoa, what?

Mr. Jekielek: Yes. I think we got to talk about this.

Mr. Patel: They got to pay up, but we’ll get to that.

Mr. Jekielek: Great. Let’s start with the laptop. Okay, why don’t we just actually do a little overview of what the whole laptop thing is?

Mr. Patel: Yeah. So a quick synopsis for our audience who is probably very dialed into this anyway. About 18 months ago, almost two years ago, there was a laptop retrieved from a computer store, I believe, in Delaware or somewhere. And basically, it was reported that it was Hunter Biden, the then candidate Biden’s son’s laptop, and on it was information regarding criminality and some serious allegations of crimes involving fraud, some even might possibly involving minor children, and some pretty serious, serious stuff.

So “The New York Post” broke the story. And immediately, because we were in the middle of a presidential election cycle with Donald Trump and Joe Biden, “The New York Post’s” Twitter account was shut down. Facebook shut them down. Anyone that reported on that story got shut down, as all Russian disinformation. That was the catchall by the fake news media, because they didn’t want this story out there.

But here’s what I’d like to remind our audience from my public defender and prosecutor days. Not only did they just have a laptop, which in and of itself is hard data, hard evidence, it’s pretty hard to refute unless you can show it was generated by someone and sort of fictionalized and sort of made up. But in this instance, not only did they have the laptop itself, belonging to Hunter Biden, they had an individual by the name of Tony Bobulinski who came out and said, “I am corroborating the contents of the laptop because I, Tony Bobulinski, are in those emails. I know the communications between Hunter Biden.” I think they called Joe Biden, the big guy or something like that. So you had two levels of evidence that you rarely get in criminal prosecutions. You have the hard data from the laptop, and you have an eyewitness who is involved in the emails that were exploited out of the laptop, authenticating, as we say, for legal purposes, the contents of it.

So when a media outlet like the “New York Post” goes out, I agree with them. They went out swinging because they had everything they needed, and they corroborated the information and the contents. And, the fake news media labeled it Russian disinformation because they just didn’t want to entertain it.

Mr. Jekielek: This was one of these hard to believe moments, where something that was ostensibly verified was suddenly, in the public eye, at least, shown to be false or at least portrayed as false. And it’s really interesting, there was this letter from it. It was about 50 past Intel officials, basically suggesting, even though they didn’t have evidence for this, I think this is what the letter said, that it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. And that’s kind of what the corporate media ran with.

Mr. Patel: Yes. And, you bring up a great point. So it wasn’t just the fake news media saying this is Russian disinformation, they used their same method of operation that they used in the whole Russiagate Hoax, how they covered it, falsely, how they covered the Ukraine impeachment fiasco, falsely. And now insert Hunter Biden and his laptop, the fake news media is doing the exact same thing.

They are outright just saying, “That story can’t be true because it hurts candidate Biden and it helps Donald Trump, so we’re just going to smash it. How do we smash it? We put out headlines that we know are false. We get people who used to be in high level positions in government to come out and say it’s false or suggest it’s false, so they can get their title, their headline story out, Hunter Biden’s laptop, Russian disinformation. And I think it was something like that in the political article that broke that story for them on that side of the fake news.

And, what ticks me off as a former Intel guy, as a former national security guy, chief of staff at DOD, is you had, not just some random Intel officials, you had two directors of the CIA. You had a director of the NSA. You had a secretary of defense. You had senior executive service level administration officials in Intelligence who had been in there for decades come out, because the fake news media asked them to sign a letter that said, “Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation,” without any proof that it was so.

That in and of itself is a complete failure, not just by the media, but by these Intelligence officials who rose to the highest ranks of government. They’re supposed to base their decision in reporting to the American public on facts, on evidence. But, the media got what it wanted. “Politico” got what it wanted. It got the headline, the tagline, Hunter Biden’s Laptop, Russian disinformation. And the story got buried. The truth is, not the story, the truth got buried. And, it went away for purposes of the election cycle.

Mr. Jekielek: One of these people that signed the official [letter], his name is John Sipher, I find it fascinating that’s his name actually, pretty high level CIA official, is on record recently saying, “If this helped get Trump not elected, I’m happy about having signed this letter at the time.”

Mr. Patel: No, I’m glad you brought up this guy. So this guy, John Sipher, was an ops officer, a senior ops officer in the Central Intelligence Agency. It’s a very high position. He was in government for decades. He rose to some of the highest positions at the CIA. Then he publicly came out and signed this letter, calling Hunter Biden’s laptop Russian disinformation—he being John Sipher.

He tweeted out or promoted an article that “Politico” put out, which the headline was, the laptop is Russian disinformation. And later, just this past week, he, John Sipher, comes out and says what you just said, basically cheering the fact that he, an Intelligence official, signed a document to push a false narrative that helped defeat Donald Trump. That is why people believe there’s a deep state Jan. That is why people can’t get it out of their minds. It’s not just Russiagate now. Now we’re onto Hunter Biden and his laptop. And you have some of the most senior officials in government, who were in government at the time, cheering for Trump’s failure, on information they knew to be false or should have known to be false.

He’s not the only one. Russ Travers is another guy that was in the Trump administration and later in the Biden administration, who basically came out this week. He signed the letter. Russ Travers signed the letter, 51 Intelligence officials. Russ used to be the head of the Counterterrorism Center over at the Office of Director of National Intelligence under the Trump administration. And, we removed him because we thought he was completely ineffective and totally political.

He comes out and doubles down this week, just like John Sipher did. He said, “Well, at the time, we were right to sign onto that letter, because we were firing off a warning that it had hallmarks of Russian disinformation, and Russia, Russia, Russia.” No, it didn’t. It had no hallmarks of Russian disinformation. And all you were doing was putting out a political narrative into a presidential election cycle, while you were a United States government official, and you didn’t have the information to support it.

And for our audience, to remind them who Russ Travers is, he later went into the Biden administration and was in charge of the S Visa Program. What’s that? That was the program responsible during the catastrophic Afghan evacuation that Joe Biden caused, that was supposed to safely remove Afghan refugees to America by vetting them. That process imploded under the leadership of Russ Travers.

So I just want our audience to have the complete picture of these Intelligence officials we’re talking about. Leon Panetta was another guy that signed, the former Secretary of Defense and the former Central Intelligence Agency director signed this letter. This man was on TV, Leon Panetta, just this past week, discussing Joe Biden’s “gaffe” about his call for regime change with Putin. And Leon Panetta went on TV and said, “Joe Biden did that because he’s Irish, so he should get a hall pass.”

Leon Panetta (clip): I can understand his emotional feel about Putin not staying in office. I think a lot of people would probably agree with that. But, at this point in the game, you really got to keep your messages very simple and very direct, and I think this created some confusion that wasn’t helpful.

CNN Interviewer (clip): Yes. I mean, President Macron has said as much. This has created, I think, more than confusion in terms of the tension that it has for people trying to negotiate with Putin. And so why do you think President Biden made that mistake?

Leon Panetta (clip): I happen to think that Joe Biden, he’s Irish, really has a great deal of compassion when he sees that people are suffering. And, I think it overwhelmed him in the sense of seeing all of the horrors that were resulting from this war.

Mr. Patel: I mean, you can’t even make this stuff up for cartoons, on Saturday morning, but you have his former Secretary of Defense and Central Intelligence director who signed this letter, giving Joe Biden an excuse for demanding regime change during war time. These are the people that signed this letter.

Mr. Jekielek: Yeah. And just for the record, President Biden clarified that he wasn’t calling for regime change with what he said. But of course, a number of analysts have suggested that things like this can’t be unsaid.

Mr. Patel: Yes. And real quick, just while we’re talking about Biden, remember, the culmination of everything we’ve just talked about, up to this point in the show led Joe Biden to go out on national TV, while he was running for president of the United States, and say, publicly, that his son’s laptop was Russian disinformation, based on the 51 people that signed that letter saying it was so even though that was false, based on the media pushing that fake narrative, without any reference to the great reporting by the “New York Post” and others who led a corroborated, truthful story. You have a presidential candidate feeding off the politicization of the Intelligence community and the media, to win a presidential election. I think that is one of the biggest political hijackings in U.S. history, maybe second only to Russiagate.

Mr. Jekielek: So I’m just going to read a social post from Hans Mahncke, one of our analysts, and also one of the hosts of Truth Over News—one of the Epoch TV shows. So here he says, this is kind of the evolution of the narrative around the laptop, he says, “Number one, there is no laptop. Number two, the laptop is a Russian plot. Number three, Hunter didn’t do anything wrong. Number four, Hunter did some bad things, but they had nothing to do with Joe Biden.” And that’s indeed kind of where we’re at, because I did actually get an email from “Washington Post” PR today. Basically… There’s one line that’s actually quite notable in there that I want to kind of highlight.

“The Post did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from or knew details about the transactions with CEFC,” that’s this Shanghai-based company, that all these verified emails that the “Washington Post” did are connected to, “which took place after he had left the vice presidency and before he announced his intentions to run for the White House in 2020.” So essentially, it seems like this is where they’re landing right now, which is basically that there is something going on. We know of course that there is an investigation, right? That the DOJ has an investigation into Hunter Biden. We’ve known that for a while, that the president isn’t involved in any way in this.

Mr. Patel: Yes. They know at the time they’re attacking a true story, that what they are printing, the media, is false. They want that political narrative anyway, because they want to hurt Donald Trump. So they get anonymous sources, or 51 senior Intelligence officials from the past, to come out and say, “must be Russian disinformation”.

Then, a year, two years passes, and they, the purveyors of fake news, “The Washington Post,” CNN, “The New York Times,” “Politico,” come out and quietly try to say, “Well, we didn’t really have it wrong. But…” What “The Washington Post” is basically doing right now is, “We didn’t get it wrong, but it looks like there might be something to it, but it doesn’t lead to Joe Biden. And we are basically the most credible journalists on planet Earth, because we are now coming forward and telling you so.”

I think it just perpetuates the narrative that so many in America have come to see is a failure, a bankruptcy in our media. And, these people have no, they literally have no ground they won’t dig under, to try and prop up their bogus stories. They were wrong on everything, Russiagate, Ukraine, now Hunter Biden’s laptop. And, I’ll continue to watch Epoch Times to get my news.

Mr. Jekielek: And I read this with a little more nuance, perhaps, okay? I don’t know-

Mr. Patel: That’s because you’re smarter.

Mr. Jekielek: I don’t know if every journalist is doing it exactly that way. I suppose there will be, there’s certainly these kinds of operatives in the corporate media and so forth. But, I think it has to do with narratives. We live in this age of activist media, where activist journalism, like i.e. fulfilling prescribed proper narratives, is what people are actually taught at numerous journalism schools, unbelievably.

So, it just seems like, whenever there’s a narrative that’s kind of the right narrative, corporate media will kind of dive into that, doesn’t matter if the facts are fully verified, and push it like crazy. But if there’s something that’s against narrative, even when there’s plenty of information available. They’ll just kind of avoid it or pick up the unverified things, like for example, this 50 Intel official letter, and push that because it’s more on the narrative that they’re looking for.

Mr. Patel: And in these scenarios, Jan, this is pre-Donald Trump, this is when the American public could rely on its institutions, its Department of Justice, its FBI, its Intelligence community, to come out and break through that bogus narrative, that maybe a few journalistic shops we’re running with. And we could then rely on the people who signed up to serve to get us to the truth.

Fast forward after Donald Trump’s election and his presidency, we no longer have that trust. That’s the biggest problem. That’s why I’ve been highlighting this entire week, on my Truth Social account, the people that I think failed their oaths of constitution and the Trump presidency, that directly linked to what we’re talking about today, which is Hunter Biden’s laptop.

The American public, I just think, has completely lost trust in these institutions. The only people that haven’t lost trust in these institutions are the same purveyors of fake news, who have now partnered with people in the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, to get all their anonymous sourcing out, and their fake reporting and their false reporting so they can have their narrative. That’s why I think so many in America have lost faith in, not just journalists and the media, but our institutions that are supposed to uphold the law.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, and speaking of the FBI, I thought it was really fascinating, just recently, to see testimony to the House Judiciary Committee by, I guess, it’s the Deputy Director of the FBI responsible for Cyber Division, where he… I think he’s admitting that he doesn’t know where the Hunter Biden laptop is. Is that how you see this? I mean, I don’t even know what to make of that.

Mr. Patel: Well, I don’t know which part of that to tackle first. Well, one, I’m glad the Judiciary Committee has members like Matt Gaetz who led this line of inquiry under oath, right? Remember, these people, this Assistant Director at the FBI, Vorndran, testified under oath to Congress, because they have to, because there’s a penalty. If they lie, it’s a criminal perjury charge. The FBI structure, let me just give a quick overview. So you have the Director, the Deputy Director, and then you have, what we call, Assistant Directors. And there’s only a handful of them. So it’s basically as high as you can go in the FBI.

This individual is the Assistant Director in charge for all of cyber security matters across the FBI, all investigations. He is the guy that used to be Bill Priestap and Peter Strzok, just to put it in context. That’s how senior of a role this individual is. We are talking about Hunter Biden’s laptop. It’s a computer. It’s cyber by its definition. There is no other definition, in terms of what bucket that kind of investigation can fall under. And Congressman Gaetz comes out and says, very simply, “Mr. Assistant Director in charge of Cybersecurity, where is Hunter Biden’s laptop?” That’s literally the question. This individual, this Assistant Director at the FBI, under oath, on national TV, says, “I don’t know.”

Congressman Gaetz (clip): So where is it? The laptop?

Bryan Vorndran (clip): Sir, I’m not here to talk about the laptop. I’m here to talk about the FBI Cyber Program.

Congressman Gaetz (clip): You are the Assistant Director of FBI Cyber. I want to know where Hunter Biden’s laptop is. Where is it?

Bryan Vorndran (clip): Sir, I don’t know that answer.

Congressman Gaetz (clip): That is astonishing to me. Has FBI Cyber assessed whether or not Hunter Biden’s laptop could be a point of vulnerability, allowing America’s enemies to hurt our country?

Bryan Vorndran (clip): Sir, the FBI Cyber Program is based off of what’s codified in Title 18 Section 10-30, a code which talks about computer intrusions using nefarious intent network-

Congressman Gaetz (clip): But you’ve talked about passwords here. I mean, Hunter Biden’s password on his laptop was Hunter02. He drops it off at a repair store. I’m holding the receipt from Max Computer Repair, where in December 2019, they turned over this laptop to the FBI. And now, you’re telling me right here is that, as the Assistant Director of FBI Cyber, you don’t know where this is, after it was turned over to you three years ago?

Bryan Vorndran (clip): Yes, sir. That’s an accurate statement.

Mr. Patel: To me, that is one of the most shocking answers. Someone who is supposed to have so much responsibility at the FBI regarding all cybersecurity investigations doesn’t know where the laptop of the son of the current president is, when that laptop is the centerpiece of a criminal investigation that’s been made public by the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Delaware. And this guy doesn’t know where it is?

Mr. Jekielek: Maybe he doesn’t think it’s important. This is the part that I’m trying to figure this out. They didn’t lose it, right?

Mr. Patel: Well, I hope not. But the problem is, this guy doesn’t know where it is. But we for sure know, thanks to reporting from Epoch Times and so many others, that the laptop in question was picked up by the FBI. What do they do with it, if this guy doesn’t know where it is? They give it back to Hunter Biden? My question is, did they exploit it? The U.S. Attorney, who’s responsible for bringing criminal charges, like I did when I was a federal prosecutor, has the case. The FBI is supposed to be exploiting, as we call, looking into the data and exfiltrating the data from the laptop to see if there is criminality on that laptop, as was put out by the “New York Post” and so many other people who have reported on Hunter Biden’s pay for play scandals with the Ukraine, with Russia, with China. Are there other crimes involving minor children on there? That’s been put out there, these hard data emails that have come out, suggesting other types of criminal behavior.

And you would think the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who’s responsible for being the law enforcement agency, that I used to work with all the time, to run this investigation. You would think its leadership would know about it. Either this investigation is so stove-piped that only the Deputy Director and Director know about it, which I find hard to believe, or this individual is covering up for someone below him, for political reasons.

It’s the same thing that caused America to lose faith in the actions of Bill Priestap and Peter Strzok, when they held these positions. Because you all saw, our audience in the world saw, what they did to the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russiagate investigation, and how they politicized that investigation, intentionally misled federal courts, lied to them, broke the laws, illegally surveilled a presidential candidate, and then the president of the United States.

Now, round two, Hunter Biden’s laptop, this new guy comes in the seat, and basically is running the same story as they did back then. “Oh, I don’t know nothing. Nothing to see here.” So now we’re going to need a serious congressional investigation. And I just don’t think you’ll see that until the November midterm elections are over, and the gavels switch.

Mr. Jekielek: It seems like you’re making a prediction there, but we won’t go there right now. Okay. Well, actually, the final thing I wanted to talk about re, the Hunter Biden laptop, and everything around it, is that former Attorney General Bill Barr has been actually talking about this. And he kind of expressed surprise at what you mentioned earlier, which was then candidate Joe Biden’s sort of reinforcing the media and former Intel community member narratives that were out there, of course, to support his own election.

Mr. Patel: Yes. So, what I find shocking, especially as someone who served at the Department of Justice, in its National Security Division, one of the best jobs I ever had, prosecuting terrorists, that an attorney general would become so politicized himself and put the needs of selling his book above the oath that he took to the Constitution. And, the hypocrisy is laid out in what you just alluded to, Jan.

So when Bill Barr was the attorney general, mind you, he has the highest security clearance in America, as the number one law enforcement officer, he has access to all the Intelligence I had access to, when I was Deputy Director of National Intelligence and later Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense. And, we know for a fact that the former director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, who I worked with, and we, he and I, would brief Bill Barr on occasion. John Ratcliffe came out and said that the Hunter Biden laptop story is not Russian disinformation. He, the spy chief, who reviewed all the intelligence, came out and said that, which I think is the right move for the public to at least know.

Now, he rightly didn’t get into the underlying cables and contents and classified intelligence, but he was making a statement for the public benefit. Why Bill Barr didn’t, as the number one law enforcement officer, who’s supposedly running an investigation, because the FBI reports to the DOJ, come out and say, “We have this investigation. We also saw all the Intel that the director of National Intelligence alluded to. We agree with him. This is not Russian disinformation.” Could have put it to bed right then and there. Didn’t have to reveal the contents of the investigation, how long it had been going, who are the targets. I know all about that and the sensitivity around it. And he didn’t have to divulge any classified information to say that.

Fast forward, now, after Bill Barr stayed silent then, now Bill Barr is screaming at the top of his lungs during his book tour, that President Trump was wrong to, during the election cycle, to go out and try to pull Joe Biden into the Russiagate investigation hoax scandal. Why the two different standards from the two-time Attorney General, the United States of America, why did he stay silent, when there was no need to, because the evidence was presented to him, the irrefutable evidence was presented to him, and now, when he has the opportunity to go out and bash his former boss, to sell his book. He is the one that’s being political. He is the one that is politicizing the Justice Department, all for monetary gain.

And I think that is just another reason, yet another reason, why America’s belief in our leadership, at places like the DOJ and the FBI and the CIA and the NSA, has crumbled. And it’s almost nonexistent, unless you are just some political hack out there. And to get it back is going to take a massive turnaround. It’s going to take investigations like the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, like the Russiagate investigation, the John Durham investigation, to hold people accountable for breaking the law, for failing to do their jobs, and then getting that information out to the public truthfully, through a media that just doesn’t want to report anything that makes President Trump look like he was right.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, this is interesting to me, right? Because Bill Barr ostensibly did some good work around exposing the false Trump-Russia collusion narrative and so forth.

Mr. Patel: Well, I would disagree that he did that work. We, there’s a collective we in there, folks at the Office of Director of National Intelligence, guys like Johnny Ratcliffe, Rick Grenell, Devon Nunes, who was in the Intel committee, Jim Jordan, just to name a few, so many other folks, ran these investigations and found the FBI and DOJ’s own documents, and had to present them to Bill Barr, as the attorney general say, “Is someone looking into this?” That’s congressional oversight at its purest form, because they can’t start a legal prosecution.

And so, after we just presented mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence, finally, Bill Barr put John Durham in place. And thankfully so. I agree, that was the right move, because there was no career prosecutor who could handle that case. That is the actual purpose of the special counsel statute—the regulation. Not the way Bob Mueller was appointed when James Comey, I believe, leaked classified information, to have his buddy appointed special counsel to run the “Russiagate investigation” oversight. This, John Durham was an actual special counsel with the right legal authorities, looking at the right things, and Bill Barr appointed him based on what we were showing him.

But he had seen the evidence. He, Bill Barr, had been briefed by people who had been working on that matter for years. Take me out of the equation. But you had senior leadership in Congress. You had cabinet level secretaries, people who are working these matters and seeing the Intelligence and saying something must be done. The only place that can happen is the Justice Department and the FBI and Bill Barr was the leader of it. So, I wouldn’t say he did it, but I would say John Durham is doing it. But I would say Bill Barr had the opportunity to correct a narrative that was completely false, that he knew was false, in the middle of a presidential election cycle, and he failed to do it. And I think, and I will say this forever, he failed his oath of office as the attorney general, when he failed to put out the false narrative about Russian disinformation surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Mr. Jekielek: So, let’s dive back into Russiagate, Trump-Russia collusion, and kind of this amazing scoop that the Washington Examiner has, which is basically that, there appears to be some accountability that’s being affected here. I’ll read the headline one more time.

“Scoop. FEC fines DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax.” And we both read this and we’re pretty fascinated.

Mr. Patel: So the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, is responsible for overseeing federal elections, such as a presidential election and what political campaigns, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Trump campaign. What the FEC does is monitor the way they spend their money. And these campaigns are spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent north of a billion dollars with a B. But, those contributions that pour in from outside individuals and companies and things like that, they can only be spent a certain way by the candidate, per the law. And the FEC is a referee of that.

So, what we knew, when we ran the Russiagate investigation and that Chairman Nunes and I, and we exposed that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the Steele dossier, an opposition research hit job. We had proven that some years ago. What the Coolidge-Reagan foundation did, pursuant to the article, was, based on our investigation, said, “Wait a second, FEC. You, as a political campaign, cannot spend political dollars launching opposition research, false or otherwise.” And so, they put in a letter like three years ago. And the FEC finally, talk about delayed accountability, but finally came around and said, “The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC illegally spent millions of dollars of the political contributions on opposition research, i.e. Fusion GPS, Steele dossier, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Fiona Hill and all that entire crew of miscreants.

And so, they fined them. That’s the FEC’s job. And, the Hillary Clinton campaign could have said, “We disagree with your finding. We’re going to go to court.” What did the Hillary Clinton campaign do? I believe it’s in the article. They said they agree to the finding of probable cause by the FEC, which means they’re basically agreeing that it happened, because they know. Like we’ve always said, follow the money, and it’s pretty hard to say otherwise, when you can show a bank wire paying for X, Y, or Z, and in this case, paying for opposition research.

And so, the Hillary Clinton campaign is not contesting it. They’re paying the fine, basically admitting that they did this, and they’re out is, “We just don’t want a protracted legal deal,” as if the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC ever shied away from taking something or someone to court, especially when it shows them how wrong they were to violate the law and spend campaign, political campaign dollars, on hit job opposition research pieces for then candidate Trump. All of which, to remind the audience, was then used intentionally by the FBI, even though they knew it was false, to go to a federal secret court and surveil a presidential candidate, and later a president of the United States.

Mr. Jekielek: But you said basically admitting, but they’re not actually admitting, right?

Mr. Patel: Well, I think they are, because as a former lawyer, when you decide not to contest something, and there’s a judgment levied against you, and you issue payment for that judgment, what are you going to walk out of court and say, “I didn’t do anything wrong, but here’s a check for $10 million.” I think the public sees what that is. It’s their way of burying the narrative, because if they contest it, what happens? More media coverage, more people start looking into these things. The FEC might go, “Wait a second. Not only are we going to fine you this amount of money, but we believe you broke these other laws relating to campaign contributions, so now your fee goes up.” And maybe there was criminal conduct involved.

So they, from their perspective, are probably saying, “How do we just get this to not be a story?” And of course, the mainstream media will not cover this, but we will. And it is another sign, as you led off with, Jan, of accountability. An actual monetary judgment, levied against the Clinton campaign and the DNC that is being paid for their wrongful conduct, I think is a massive step in the right direction to restore faith to some of these institutions. I think guys like John Durham are where we hope to see the biggest form of accountability down the road.

Mr. Jekielek: You know, Kash, it’s really remarkable at this point to see accountability, some sort of accountability happen. I know, certainly, a lot of our viewers have been asking this question, will there be any accountability? And here at least there’s some, although many would argue, of course, that a lot more needs to happen.

Mr. Patel: I think you’re right. It’s the reason many people get into government is to hold people outside of government accountable. But when your internal apparatuses of government, and its leadership fail, like we showed with Russiagate, and like our investigation got 17 people from the FBI and DOJ fired or retired early, that’s a step towards accountability.

This FEC fine is another step towards accountability. But me, as a former federal prosecutor, maybe I’m biased, but the ultimate step of accountability, which the American public is waiting for, comes in the form of indictments, especially to those people who violated their oath of office, because that’s a privilege that they served in that capacity and, I believe, broke the law. So, I think John Durham’s got a few more indictments coming. I don’t know. I could be wrong. But, when he does, we’ll be covering it here.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, let’s jump to our shout out then.

Mr. Patel: So this week, shout out goes to Arthur Bochutti. Thanks so much for your comments on our board at Kash’s Corner, and thank you, everybody, who comments on that board. Jan and I look forward to reviewing those comments every week. We also have now started seeing comments from you on Truth Social, where I’m at, where Jan’s at, and we engage you guys directly. And we’ll see you next week on Kash’s Corner.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

Follow EpochTV on social media:



Read More
Related Videos