Kash’s Corner: Putin Invasion Shows ‘Precipitous Downfall’ of American National Security Prowess; Biden Ignores Afghanistan in SOTU
“[Putin] does not care about what America might do.” American national security prowess has suffered a “precipitous downfall” on the global stage, says Kash Patel. “That’s not good, and I don’t know how we get that back in the near term.”
Kash Patel: Hey, everybody. And welcome back to Kash’s Corner. If you can believe it, today’s episode is the last one for Season 3, and we’ll be back in a couple weeks at the end of March with Season 4.
Jan Jekielek: So, Kash, of course, we’re going to talk about the State of the Union today. But the other thing that’s on everybody’s mind right now… And frankly, President Biden led with this in the State of the Union… is the Russia-Ukraine war. Vladimir Putin invaded, wholesale, Ukraine. And frankly, this is something that we didn’t see coming.
Mr. Patel: Well, I think you got it right. I got it wrong. So I definitely did not think Putin was actually going to invade. I said it for a couple of months on our program and on national TV. I just didn’t think. And maybe part of it was, I had the hope that America still had the residual prowess, from a national security perspective, to prevent or thwart something like that from happening, but I got it wrong. And I think you had, actually, wisely said we should have looked at some of the reporting that was not being widely disseminated more closely before I made that call.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, so here’s the thing, right? My background is Polish. My parents got out of Communist Poland back in the ’70s. I’ve grown up kind of understanding that we had been under Russian occupation. That’s how the Poles perceived us, as much as it was the Soviet Union at the time. I have a general understanding that Putin likely has these hegemonic ambitions.
He’s interested in all these countries that used to be the satellite states of the Soviet Union, because it’s a sign of a weakened Russia, if you will, and then that needs to be fixed. And he can certainly build a lot of favor back home by showing that he’s kind of expanding the empire once again.
So I knew all this, right. This whole thing drives me a bit nuts because there’s just been so much of this divergence from the original truth-seeking mission, the truth-seeking mission of media to narrative creation and narrative reinforcement. I think some of the stuff that I saw happening in the mainstream media made me kind of reflexively think, “Okay, no. That that can’t be true.” Right? And it’s just sad. It’s a terrible state for our media in general to be in. I’ve been lamenting this because all of us are affected by it.
Mr. Patel: Well, I think we’ve been talking about it on a number of levels, how the media has failed so many, not only when it comes to journalistic integrity, but also when it comes to what they choose to report. And as a result, we suffer as a population and as a global society as to what we should be reading. Back in the day, it used to be, you just read the news, all of it, because it’s printed or it’s on TV, and it’s not dissected and disseminated based on political orientation, or whether or not you agree with the who’s in the White House, and whatnot.
So, as you said, [we] should have looked at it differently. Didn’t. But unfortunately and tragically, I think Putin has made this decision to start another war, and probably because he believes the Soviet Union is where Russia should be now, with all the lands they used to have, going all the way up to the Iron Curtain and whatnot.
So hopefully he does not. I’m glad that they’re talking about sending delegations to the Ukraine and maybe making a peaceful resolution to this. But the one thing that is non-existent right now is American diplomacy on the global stage when it comes to Ukraine-Russia. There’s no one there. Putin’s not even taking Biden’s phone calls. It’s not like our secretary of state is going over there and meeting with anyone in the fancy places in Geneva, or Paris, or wherever they go on their million-dollar excursions. That’s not even happening.
Putin’s not talking to anyone in America, as far as I’m aware. And that leads me to believe that he… And I think we got this right. He does not care about what America might do like he did when President Trump was in power, because he didn’t invade anywhere then. And so I just think that shows a precipitous downfall on the global stage for American national security prowess, and that’s not good. And I don’t know how we get that back in the near term.
Mr. Jekielek: In the U.S., there’s been both removal of Russia from the SWIFT system, and also sanctions on the banks—central bank and bank transactions. All of that specifically excludes energy transactions and energy SWIFT, right, which is kind of-
Mr. Patel: It defeats the purpose.
Mr. Jekielek: … kind of incredible, right? Because energy is the thing that’s allowing… or specifically oil, natural gas, is specifically what’s allowing Russia to even wage the war in the first place. At least, that’s what most of the analysts I trust are telling me.
Mr. Patel: Yes. And I know we’re going to talk about the State of the Union later. But on the heels of that address and announcing these SWIFT sanctions and these energy sanctions, the exception is, as of today, as of right now, America is buying Russian oil and gas. If our audience listens to nothing else this episode, take that home to the bank. That is a hard fact.
As you said, these sanctions that the United States put into place, our political leadership exempted us out of, and the Russians out of complying with the sanctions when it pertains to natural gas and oil. So we, America, are buying and allowing Russia to not only sell to us, but other countries around the world. So they, Russia, continue to make money off their principal export, which is oil and natural gas. That to me is… I don’t want to say it’s insane, but it’s basically ludicrous to allow them to do so.
And quickly, to your other point about the unification of Europe, I think Zelenskyy deserves a little bit of credit here. He strategically and smartly, I think, went to the EU and said, “You guys want to let us in?” And they said, “We’ll let you in on an expedited fashion,” which I think has sort of given the EU new purpose since NATO is sort of not really coming together as it should right now.
And now the EU’s saying, “We might let the Ukraine into the EU.” Can you imagine if that happens and Putin continues his war? Then he’s literally in war, at war, with the EU. So I thought that was a brilliant geostrategic move by Zelenskyy’s part to instigate that process.
Mr. Jekielek: So, two things, okay? The first thing is the energy exemption. It’s actually not just for oil and gas. I was just looking at this Office of Foreign Assets Control memo. Right?
Mr. Patel: Oh. [crosstalk 00:07:13].
Mr. Jekielek: So, it’s actually wood, and coal, and a whole suite of other things. Anyway, it’s just very interesting. The second piece though, is I fully agree with you. This sort of move by Zelenskyy for Ukraine is probably a brilliant strategic move. There’s a lot of questions, though, about whether this isn’t kind of moving us closer to a kind of a world war type situation. Putin has mentioned that… well, sort of suggested that nuclear options might be at play. I’ve seen that begun to be discussed in different places. This is deeply scary stuff, right?
Mr. Patel: No, no. Yeah. This is what you prepare against at all costs, when you’re in government service and when I was chief of staff at DOD. So, one of the reasons I think Putin put out the whole nuclear armament discussion, or heightened posture, as he put it, is because nobody thought the Ukrainians were going to fight back as hard as they did and as successfully as they’ve done, let alone Putin. He thought he was just going to roll through the Ukraine and take it.
So he was losing the global narrative all of a sudden. So what does he do? He comes over the top and says, “Well, I, Russia have more nukes than almost anybody on Planet Earth. We’re going to a heightened posture.”
That’s scary. And now everyone’s talking about it, as they should be. But it was another propaganda grab by him to say, “Well, maybe we lost a battle or two here, or we’re not hitting our targets here and there. But don’t forget, I got the nukes,” which is a very scary proposition because he can reach anywhere in the world with his nuclear arsenal, not just Europe.
And so, like you said, that’s a scenario that’s never supposed to happen. That’s what the whole Cold War was about. Are we going to relive the Cold War, and the reset, and all that stuff? I mean that is going to take some brilliant leadership on the national security front that, well, I just don’t think we have here in America.
Mr. Jekielek: And one thing I just wanted to mention, a lot of people have actually asked publicly, in Twitter feeds and so forth, why is Poland so particularly open? Poland has actually opened its borders, basically, to the Ukrainian refugees. There’s kind of a general understanding, I guess. Poland has this historical memory of being rolled over by Germany, and Russia, and so forth. And they kind of understand exactly what this is and that it could just as easily be happening to them. Right?
Mr. Patel: No, I think you’re right.
Mr. Jekielek: [crosstalk 00:09:53] Ukraine. So anyway, I’m proud of my Polish heritage here a little bit. Yeah.
Mr. Patel: Yeah. Just to finish that thought, what people probably don’t recognize or realize right now is in a week’s worth of war, basically, Putin has caused a generation worth of damage. I mean, even if it stopped today, the amount of reconstruction that Ukraine as a country is going to have to do for everything that was destroyed, and the refugee crisis that will immediately pursue; like refugee crisis always occur in theaters of war. This is no different. And that is a generational fix. And thankfully, the Polish people are ahead of the curve and recognize this. But I don’t think the world realizes that even if we were to stop today and come to a diplomatic solution, Ukrainians have 30, 40 years of reconstruction to go.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s something I hadn’t even contemplated. And frankly, the whole war situation is something that President Biden led with in the State of the Union, which is the other thing that we want to talk about today. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Patel: I don’t know where to start. I’ll try to keep my nunchucks in my pocket. But I think the theme for me, the takeaway, was, one, you have to watch the State of the Union because it’s commander in chief, and you have to see what direction he’s taking the country. Words alone, to me, are not sufficient to overcome your failures on the national stage, on the economics stage. I understand wanting to stay positive and commuting that to the American people and the world, and giving them motivation.
I’m good with all that. We should do that, but a true leader should recognize some of his biggest failures. And right out of the gate, the one thing I wanted President Biden to do was acknowledge the 13 dead American soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan as a direct result of President Biden’s decision to let ISIS-K bombers out of Bagram detention. Those individuals went to the gates at Kabul International Airport, blew up a suicide vest, and killed our service men and women. He, President Biden, in the State of the Union did not even mention Afghanistan or the fallen.
And for me in, I guess, my background, and maybe I’m partial for some reasons, that is reprehensible. It’s beyond reproach. I will not forgive him for doing that, on behalf of the families. And I talk to a lot of the folks in our military community who are still serving, and they just don’t understand. Coming on the heels of the 10-year anniversary of Extortion 17 in Afghanistan, which is the largest special forces fatality in the United States special forces history, for him not to recognize that, and the casualty of 13 soldiers at one time, which is also the largest casualty we faced in conventional soldiers in many, many years, is, to me, a unforgivable failure of leadership.
Mr. Jekielek: In this sort of situation you might actually have families, or representatives, or something like that at the State of the Union itself, right?
Mr. Patel: Yes. So When you’re in the White House, in the positions that I was in, you help put together the State of the Union. I don’t mean the speech itself. You help with parts of that. Being, for me, we helped with the counterterrorism portion—parts of it. And I’ll just give you an idea what happens. President Trump one year killed Baghdadi, and he wanted that to be a part of the State of the Union, and rightfully so, and tell the world how it happened.
But what he also does is, the first lady has a box, a group of seats at the State of the Union. And she invites guests from throughout the country, and sometimes even the world, that she and the president want to speak to. So in this instance, President Trump and the first lady invited Carl and Marsha Mueller, the parents of Kayla Mueller, who was a kidnapped by al-Baghdadi and ISIS, tortured, raped, and killed. And I got to know those parents very well.
And President Trump wanted to make sure he honored not just Kayla, but the likes of James Foley, Peter Kassig, and the Sotloff family, other journalists who were beheaded by ISIS under Baghdadi, to honor their families and their children who were killed. And that’s something that the State of the Union is about, to show the American people and the world that this was a priority for the president.
He went to literally the ends of the earth to find this individual and kill him, and honored those families that evening by what I thought was a very touching moment, which I’ll never forget, unveiling a piece of classified information on the world stage by telling the world we named the operation 8-17, which was Kayla Mueller’s birthday. And to that point, it had been classified.
So that’s an example of what I think [is] an effective State of the Union. It’s emotional. Many people can relate to it. Many people can’t. But everyone respects the cost of war, and fighting terrorists, and bringing home Americans, which is, I think, as a leader, some of your central duties. And from the other day, when President Biden gave a State of the Union, I think he utterly failed.
Mr. Jekielek: Well. Okay. Let me focus on something that I thought was positive. Okay? Essentially, it almost seemed like President Biden said, “Okay, the pandemic is over.” I don’t know if that’s what he said exactly. But he said, “Get rid of the masks. Students should be in school. People should be going back to work.” Certainly suggesting that a lot of the policy, which has been on its way out, of course… The CDC changed its masking guidelines about a week ago. I see that as incredibly positive. A lot of people would say incredibly overdue, but nonetheless positive. Your thoughts.
Mr. Patel: No, I think you and I have talked about this a lot. And we think these restrictions should have been lifted a year plus or so ago. And I think, again, this is, unfortunately, another example of this administration politicizing national security.
The mask mandate coincidentally happens to be lifted on the evening of the State of the Union, so the president can go into the chamber and deliver his speech from the well of the floor in Congress, and members of Congress now, all of a sudden, aren’t wearing masks. The hypocrisy of that, to me, is stunning for this administration, who continue to rail against every policy President Trump put into place when it came to mask mandates, and vaccines, and the like.
And so I’m glad it’s at an end. I just don’t agree that it was done for the right reasons, because if they did it based on the empirical data that you know better than probably anyone on earth, Jan, the data to do it supported it a year ago, not on the evening of the State of the Union. And when you do that, you politicize the national security interest. I will vehemently disagree with any president that does that.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, just to comment, I certainly don’t know it better than anybody else on earth, but I do talk often with a lot of people who do know it incredibly well.
Mr. Patel: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: And basically, around the masking, there just simply hasn’t been any good data that would suggest that it’s actually truly helpful, especially cloth masks. It just frankly has never existed. And Dr. Fauci himself has kind of admitted to lying about issues around masking early on in the pandemic, which itself, I thought, was something that maybe you have thought about a bit more.
Mr. Patel: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: But-
Mr. Patel: And again, the media failed in covering that. We’ve talked about it, but this is just another example.
Mr. Jekielek: Right. Another thing that I thought was really interesting, and could be very positive, is President Biden announced a chief prosecutor for COVID 19 pandemic fraud. Now, there was a lot of abuse. I mean, there’s a ton of printing of money that happened, a lot of stimulus supporting people. Ostensibly, a lot of people that applied for this, for these funds, were people that didn’t need them. So there’s fraud.
Mr. Patel: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: I actually put this up in my own Twitter feed, that I thought this is very interesting. What should the mandate of such a prosecutor be? And a lot of people were actually commenting, well, probably that [the] prosecutor should be looking into the agencies, into the CDC, the NIH, this kind of whole realm, not just the people that were taking the money. And now the question is, what will the mandate of this special prosecutor be? It could actually be something that’s needed and helpful.
Mr. Patel: Yes. Look, I began my career as a public defender in Miami, which is the mortgage fraud and Medicare fraud capital of the world, literally, where people, my clients, would be charged with defrauding the Medicare system by standing up fake offices and billing for HIV equipment and drugs, and things like that, with doctors who are in on the scam and bilking the system for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Those people should absolutely be prosecuted. And as a former federal prosecutor, I think these people who defrauded the system, that was designed to help Americans who needed to get through some tough times, should absolutely be prosecuted. And I agree, if they stand it up the right way, that’s a righteous endeavor.
I’m telling you, those prosecutions are going to take two to three years to build, because that’s how long it takes to get the paper trail, to catch up to the people, the culprits, that did it. So I hope they mean it and they’re in for the long run, because bringing fraud cases to the Department of Justice is not an overnight endeavor.
What I was not thrilled with was the fact that the Biden administration, while announcing this special unit at the Department of Justice, quashed and canceled the unit that stood up at the Department of Justice to prosecute Chinese espionage cases in America. I found that another example, a shocking example, of failure of leadership when it comes to national security.
Our audience, especially, knows we, the United States, bring dozens of Chinese espionage cases in America every year, and successfully so, and convict them, and put them into prison, and then deport them if they’re not American citizens.
China is our largest adversary. How we can all of a sudden say we are not focused on those that come to America to commit this type of espionage, and disband the unit charged with prioritizing those prosecutions, to me is another grotesque failure of leadership, especially when it comes to law enforcement and national security issues.
So I don’t know what that means. Are we just going to stop prosecuting Chinese espionage cases? And the reasoning was, and we read about this, they put out publicly, was because they thought it was borderline racist and harmful to Chinese Americans. No one’s saying prosecute Chinese Americans. I’m just saying prosecute the spies who are stealing our secrets and giving it to our adversaries.
But then again, Joe Biden didn’t have a problem giving intelligence to our adversary Xi Jinping, who shared it with Russia, regarding troop movements. And that’s something we can talk about.
Mr. Jekielek: So, to your point, yes, the reason why China has been uniquely singled out for espionage is because China has been uniquely involved in espionage.
Mr. Patel: They’re doing it.
Mr. Jekielek: Right? So it makes some sense to have an initiative that’s focused on that. I-
Mr. Patel: I think the hypocrisy is stunning. The president of the United States, President Biden, we now find out through reporting that he, for the last few months, has been giving sensitive collection, sensitive intelligence that we were collecting around the Ukraine troop movements, postures, and positioning to Xi Jinping and the CCP.
And then we’re surprised that Xi Jinping turned around the next day and gave it to Putin, to use it against the Ukrainians, and Western Europeans, and our allies? I demanded an investigation for that. I still make that demand because that was another grotesque failure of national security. And then he comes back a week later. He, President Biden, says, “I’m disbanding the Chinese espionage unit.” I just don’t understand the logic or the intelligence that that decision is based on.
Mr. Jekielek: And I can’t help but wonder… again, going back to sort of the media, right… when there’s just kind of the same messaging being put out there over however many of the past years, right? There’s been this idea in what I call the legacy media that somehow Putin, Russia is evil, and China, not so much. Right? And not in any way suggesting that Putin doesn’t have all sorts of nefarious designs. Clearly, he does. And we see that manifest as we speak. Right?
The point is, when you have this kind of ever-present narrative that’s being pushed, it can cloud judgment. Right? You might think to yourself, “Oh, maybe the Chinese will help me, the Chinese Communist Party, which is committing three genocides right now, might help me work against this worse evil of Russia.” I can imagine that could impact your decision-making and make decisions like giving sensitive intelligence to the Chinese regime, which, you can bet, will not be doing anything good with it.
Mr. Patel: No. And the other thing that China’s getting away with right now, in what they’re doing, from their perspective, smartly, is writing this whole Russian war into the Ukraine. They’re behind it, doing their own thing because no one’s monitoring. No one’s focused on China. No one’s focused on the South China Sea.
No one’s focused on what Xi Jinping and the CCP are doing in Taiwan. He’s got the best top cover he’s ever had in years, not to mention a weak president in the United States. So that’s something I hope this administration is looking out for. And I don’t want to know. Or excuse me, I don’t want to say China’s going to do what Russia did with Taiwan, but I sure hope not.
Mr. Jekielek: I think the one thing that we do know… And it’s, frankly, not very heartening… is that, given that basically nobody that I’ve talked to thought… There’s a few exceptions. We have an analyst or two that actually did predict this invasion. But basically, nobody thought that Putin would do a full-scale invasion. So it’s like all bets are off. And similarly, the calculus the Chinese regime is doing at this point… Who knows, right, what their designs might be? Most people I’ve talked to believe it’ll be down the road. They’re watching.
On the other hand, if these sanctions actually do become full throated, do end up encompassing the energy sector, do… I mean, effectively, you’d have to do secondary sanctions on China, I think, to actually deal with Russia, now that we know that they’re not imposing sanctions themselves. So if all that happens, maybe the Chinese regime would think twice about invading Taiwan, because they’d see that there’s a response. But if the response is weak, that’s a really bad signal, I think, to be sending to the Chinese Communist Party.
Mr. Patel: No. Completely. And if the response is, “Don’t worry. You can do whatever you want as our enemies. We’re still going to let you make money off your cash cow, off whatever your product is.” For Russia, it’s oil and gas. For China, it’s what have you. We’re exempting themselves out of accountability for their actions. So I don’t think anything good can come of that.
Mr. Jekielek: Okay, first of all, just going back to COVID very briefly, the language was uniting. President Biden in the past has called it a pandemic of the unvaccinated, for example. I don’t think anyone could argue that’s not divisive language. This, the language around COVID was very uniting and kind of bringing Americans together and so forth. I think that’s very positive because a lot of what has happened over the last two years, the policy has been incredibly divisive. Right?
I don’t think anyone would argue that. Or isolating. Now, the other thing that I heard which was interesting was, “Don’t defund the police. Fund the police.” There was a lot of questions about what the position of the administration was. And it was pretty unequivocal that the Biden administration is supporting funding the police, as opposed to defunding.
Mr. Patel: Good. I mean, that’s something I’m going to be resoundingly in favor of, from my background. So I hope that’s actually the policy. I did see a lot of progressives stand up after the State of the Union and actually attack President Biden for saying things like, “Fund the police,” because that was an initiative from the progressive left to defund the police. Crime is up literally everywhere, in every major city in America; Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Washington, where have you. It’s up across suburban America.
Murder rates, rape rates, and the narcotics trade is exploding. So good. Give police officers the authorities they had back to police the streets, reduce crime, put people in jail. Don’t give them bond. I hope he means that thing when he says fund the police, because all of that’s interrelated. You can’t just give them a bunch of money and then have them gut their tools and say, “Wear body cameras and stand guard.” That’s not appropriately funding the police. So I hope he means that.
And to your language about unity on COVID, good. I’m cheering that. That is what America should be hearing from its commander in chief. But the message should be consistent. So hopefully there is no reversal on what’s going to happen going forward with COVID, and mandates, and vaccines. Hopefully we’re past all that. I guess we’ll see.
Mr. Jekielek: So what about this drug trafficking that you just mentioned? President Biden kind of briefly mentioned the border. I don’t think he really covered the reality of what’s essentially, I think, unequivocally, a crisis at the border.
Mr. Patel: No, you’re right. It’s a total crisis. And you would expect the commander in chief to address this massive national security crisis on our southern border. Instead, in the State of the Union, the president of the United States said, “To address the situation at the border, we’re going to install more sensors.” That was literally his language. And you can’t install enough sensors along the border to secure the border.
Sensors are a small component of border security. I firmly believed in the wall, and also empowering border patrol agents to actually patrol the border in heavy numbers. Because when you have manning and equipment out there together, along with the fence or a wall, then you have border security—like we did under President Trump.
Of course, President Biden didn’t want to talk about the explosion in the narcotics trade that is pouring over the border. Human trafficking is up over 25 percent. Drug trafficking is up over 30 percent. Chinese fentanyl is up over 50 percent. And all of these narcotics and human trafficking efforts are coming into the country, causing our youth to be killed at higher numbers than ever before, due to drug addiction and opioid crisis.
Mr. Jekielek: Kind of coupled with the whole COVID-
Mr. Patel: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: … isolation, reality, mental health. All these things are tied together.
Mr. Patel: It all goes together. And while not addressing illegal immigration at all. It didn’t even really come up in his speech, in terms of how he’s going to address it.
Mr. Jekielek: I do think he said that he wants to give pathways to-
Mr. Patel: For the Dreamers.
Mr. Jekielek: Citizenship for the Dreamers and maybe some other people.
Mr. Patel: But they’re already here. As in January, I think it was… Or December or January, I think the statistic was a million people crossed the border, which is a lot of people illegally crossed the border, not legally. Illegally. How do we address inflation and all the kitchen table problems in America if we can’t protect our southern border?
That’s something, Jan, I constantly hear when I go around and talk around the country. They’re like, “What about our southern border?” And I heard no resolution for its problems last night. Again, I heard verbiage to gloss over it and sort of somehow take credit for moving past it, like he did with the Ukraine—the invasion of the Ukraine. He’s somehow taking credit for solving a situation he did not assist in stopping. And the border’s just another example.
Mr. Jekielek: So, I guess there’s one final thing I wanted to mention, which, I again, thought was… frankly, sounded very familiar to me, which was, “Let’s bring the supply chains home. Let’s make it in America.”
Mr. Patel: I totally agree with that. And I hope he follows through with bringing jobs back here, bringing factories back here, bringing the workforce back here to America, essentially making America first, which is an idea I’ve always believed in. So I hope he does that. It would be a positive for the country.
And one of the things I did agree with… And I have to mention this… in President Biden’s speech he addressed veterans as the sort of backbone of our world. And I couldn’t agree more. And veterans need a lot of assistance. It was a focal point of the Trump administration. We gave them a lot more assistance. We cleaned up the VA, shortened timelines, and gave veterans the option to go into private healthcare systems because they’re not getting the treatment they deserve in the VA.
One of the things he addressed was the causes or the fallout from the burn pits and chemical radiation in multiple theaters of war, not just one place. And Secretary Miller and I, when we were leading the Department of Defense, we took that on. We took that head on. And we made K2, Karshi-Khanabad, a priority because for 20 years in Uzbekistan, that city was the entry point for us, American soldiers who first went into Afghanistan, and it was a biohazard wasteland.
And for 20 years, no government in America recognized that as a theater of war, such as those veterans could be treated for it. We, Chris Miller and I, got the president of the United States to sign that memo, on January 19th, I believe, the day before we left the administration, and got those veterans and their families, thousands of them, full coverage for all the fallout from the biochemical wasteland.
So the burn pits that President Biden addressed, I couldn’t agree with him more. Our veterans from not just K2, but around so many different theaters of war, need that coverage. And I will cheerlead him on that one and join him on that one. And I hope he follows through with his VA to get those service members the care that they need.
Mr. Jekielek: So, Kash, I think it’s time for a shout-out.
Mr. Patel: Today’s shout-out, Jan, goes to Evan Harris. Thanks so much for your great comments on Kash’s Corner’s comment board. And we thank everyone who posted their commentary. We read it every week, and we enjoy it. And as we said, today is the finishing episode for Season 3. Jan, I can’t believe it’s been three seasons. But stay tuned for Season 4 in a few weeks. And for those of you who just can’t get enough of Kash’s Corner, go back, and I challenge you to make a highlight reel and submit it to us on Epoch Times, and we might just pick it and post it on my first-ever social media account on Truth Social. So we’ll see you in a few weeks.
Mr. Jekielek: So if you decide to make one of these highlight reels, send the link to firstname.lastname@example.org. That’s email@example.com. I’m looking forward to looking through them all.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.