search icon
Live chat

Kash’s Corner: What Did the FBI Know Before Jan. 6?

What did the FBI know in the weeks and days leading up to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach? Is the Department of Justice possibly committing Brady violations?

“When Christopher Wray told the world that the FBI had no … verifiable or credible evidence that January 6 was going to happen, that’s a complete and total lie because they had placed FBI confidential human sources there,” argues Kash Patel.

“The Department of Justice is taking an active position to prosecute people when they have not fully investigated the case and know[ing] there’s information out there that might be beneficial to a number of the defendants they are currently prosecuting.”

We discuss recent reporting about FBI informants within Proud Boys, Christopher Wray’s testimony on Jan. 6, and likely Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy’s plans to remove Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Eric Swalwell, and Rep. Ilhan Omar from committee assignments.

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

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


Kash Patel:

Hey, everybody and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. Happy Thanksgiving to our Epoch TV and Epoch Times family. We got a great episode in store for you today. Jan, what are we going to be talking about?

Jan Jekielek:

A big thing is the January 6th narratives seem to keep breaking down. There is The New York Times reporting that there were eight confidential human sources, and we have Christopher Wray testifying in Congress and lots of questions about this particular testimony. We’ve got Republican investigations coming up, what’s going to happen with those committee assignments, or for perhaps for some people, no more committee assignments? A whole lot of stuff today.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, let’s dive in.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s start with January 6th. We are suddenly becoming aware that there’s knowledge of multiple confidential human sources. What do you make of this?

Mr. Patel:

Not to say that Epoch Times and Kash’s Corner called it first, but we did. We labeled it the FBI’s Confidential Human Source Corruption Coverup Network. We’ve talked about it extensively in the past, be it Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, tech executive Joffe, and so many others that we’ve uncovered during the Russiagate scandal, during the Durham investigation, during the Sussman prosecution and the Igor Danchenko prosecution.

And we questioned it before, we said, based on evidence that we found in reporting, in journalism with integrity, that there were people like Ray Epps and company there on January 6th on behalf of the FBI. Fast forward to months later, it turns out we were right yet again. And we have more questions than we do answers today. From a former federal prosecutor perspective, let me just give you that lens.

If we’re to believe the reporting that there’s eight, not one, but eight confidential human sources, and possibly even dressed in pro-Trump gear, you have to hit a timeout button and say, “Wait a second.” It’s not like the FBI found these people on January 5th and said, “Go forth.” A confidential human source for the Federal Bureau of Investigation requires a minimum of a six month onboard vetting process. 

Then, you have to go through the rules and regulations on how to be a confidential human source. And once all of that happens and the FBI does their own internal verification to approve, not just your background but your relationships and your financial stability and do you have ties to enemies of the United States and things like that, there’s an extensive process there.

We exposed, we being Devin and I, when we ran Russiagate, we exposed Christopher Steele’s source verification process at the FBI, which at the time was classified, but now has been put out. The FBI themselves determined Christopher Steele would basically be a terrible source, but they decided to use him anyway, because they needed him to cover up their corruption.

Now, let’s relate that to January 6th. How do we have eight people there, and Christopher Wray—will get to him in a second—refused to answer questions about it? You have to ask yourself, “Okay, well, that was in planning for at least a year. What was the FBI doing planning January 6th for a year?” Christopher Wray has testified that the FBI never instigated or helped the January 6th protestors commit crimes. 

Then, there was a testimony from the FBI and Christopher Wray about January 6th, where he says, “We, the FBI, had no evidence that January 6th was going to happen.” The two cannot coexist, Jan. You either have eight confidential human sources, who have been working for a year and placing them in specific groups and locations for January 6th, or you don’t have evidence that January 6th was going to happen.

Now, we have caught Christopher Wray in yet another lie to Congress, because these confidential human sources would have been reporting, by mandate and the law, to the FBI the entire time they were working in these groups, and working with these people, and working with individuals that were there on January 6th. You can’t just airdrop them in. So, when Christopher Wray told the world that the FBI had no quality or verifiable or credible evidence that January 6th was going to happen, that’s a complete and total lie, because the FBI had placed confidential human sources there.

Now the millions of questions that follow are, who did they place? Where did they place them? How did they verify them? What did they get paid? And then, why is the FBI lying to the world about their involvement in January 6th? At the end of the day, it could be completely innocent. As a former federal prosecutor, you have to always keep that in mind. 

But their track record strongly suggests the opposite on the individuals we’ve outlined, and how they’ve used their confidential human source corruption coverup network to do just that, cover up the FBI and DOJs own corruption. And if it happens yet again, I don’t think that this FBI leadership has the ability to stand up in front of Congress and say, “We can continue to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” There needs to be some serious change.

Mr. Jekielek:

One thing that just jumped out at me is the The New York Times first coming out and not exactly contradicting, because like you mentioned, Wray didn’t exactly answer the question and was stopped by the head of the Jan 6th committee in the end from having to answer. But it’s The New York Times publishing that there’s eight. And I asked you before we filmed, basically, “Do you now take stock in what The New York Times is publishing?” 

Mr. Patel:

No, I don’t. And I think our crowd and our audience knows that. But what I take stock in is that The New York Times has consistently reported over the years about leaks, about confidential human sources, about Christopher Steele, about Danchenko, about others consistently, when it benefited a narrative for them, or when they wanted to get ahead of a story that was bad for their narrative. It is almost impossible to believe that The New York Times just went out there and said, “We have found out information about eight confidential human sources on January 6th.”

Now, there’s an angle for that, and this is part of the disinformation campaigns that we’ve disentangled over the years on this show. And remember this, Jan, someone unlawfully leaked to The New York Times, that there are confidential human sources working for the FBI on investigation X, Y, and Z related to January 6th. That’s an improper leak.

Is anyone investigating that at the DOJ? Probably not. Because again, it cuts against the narrative they want to frame. And for those reasons I think that you will see, come January, hopefully, a production of documents related to this to answer the questions we put forth about their involvement. 

You pointed out one interesting thing I wanted to circle back to. Yes, Chris Way refused to answer the questions, and basically gave the standard cheese government line of, “If you’re suggest the FBI had any involvement or instigation in January 6th, that’s categorically false.” And we’ve just outlined why.

Speaker 3:

Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protestors on January 6th, 2021?

Christopher Wray:

Well, Congressman, as I’m sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when we are–

Speaker 3:

Even knowledge, because that’s what you told us years ago.

Christopher Wray:

May I finish? May I finish? About when we do and do not and where we have and have not used confidential human sources. But to the extent that there’s a suggestion, for example, that the FBI’s confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6th, that’s categorically false.

Speaker 3:

Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January the sixth prior to the doors being opened?

Christopher Wray:

Again, I have to be very careful in what I can-

Speaker 3:

It should be a no. Can you not tell the American people, “No, we did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters position inside the Capitol on January 6th.”

Speaker 5:

The gentleman’s time has expired.

Christopher Wray:

You should not read anything into my decision not to share information-

Speaker 5:

Director Wray-

Christopher Wray:

… related to confidential human resources.

Speaker 5:

… the gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Patel:

Either you knew through your confidential human source network, which you placed months in advance that January 6th was going on, or you didn’t. But now we know they existed, and now we know you lied. And unlike in this past incidence of question and answer for Chris Wray where the chair saved him, come January, when the House is led by a Republican majority, I don’t think there’s going to be a chairman that’s going to be cutting off Christopher Way and saving him from answering that question.

Mr. Jekielek:

It’s also very interesting, it’s in the mandate, if I recall correctly, of the January 6th committee to basically look at what involvement federal agencies had in this whole thing, which are questionably being addressed. I’m going to read something that Stephen McIntyre came up with. It’s a little off the beaten path, but very interesting. I want to see what you think, okay.

He said, “While the first instinct of the incoming House is to shut down the J6 committee, the House should do exactly the opposite. McCarthy should state, ‘House will continue the work of J6 committee under new leadership. Also, that all documents must remain within the House and all employees remain for continuity.’ McCarthy should also assert that all employees of the J6 committee are subject to a continuing duty of confidentiality to the House. 

That employees are not permitted to impart confidential information to any new employer. Microsoft would not suck its thumb if its employees walk proprietary documents and technology over to Google. Nor should incoming House leadership suck its thumb, while the J6 employees walk proprietary documents and knowledge over to Jack Smith.”

Mr. Patel:

Wow, that’s an interesting take, and one I probably, at first blush, agree with at least in good part. And that is because I am for the investigation of the January 6th matter to continue properly, not in a partisan hyperbolic fashion, which has been the case when it’s been led by, as President Trump commonly refers to as, “the unselects of January 6th.” 

There’s so many reasons from my background, from my investigative intelligence, evidentiary prosecutorial background, and public defender background to want it to continue to exist, because I think the American public are owed so many answers.

And the major answer they’re owed is, “What were law enforcement’s failures of the Capitol Police, FBI, DHS, and company on that day.?” We haven’t had a single witness interviewed publicly that has spoken to that. We haven’t seen a document produced by the January 6th committee that speaks to that. So, you see the intentional misdirection of this current January 6th committee to focus on just one thing.

And that is, “How do we set up President Trump to either be taken out or refer him to DOJ for this insurrection narrative that we have created?” And they have done America a great disservice in qualifying their investigation before it ever started. They’ve also done the Department of Justice a great disservice, but intentionally so, by not producing all the materials that are in their possession.

It’s the first time, and we talked about this maybe six months ago on the show, that I can ever recall that the DOJ yielded to a congressional investigation and said in court, they said this in court, not me, the Department of Justice said in a federal criminal trial related to the January 6th prosecutions that they are waiting, they, DOJ, are waiting for the Jan 6th investigation to finish, and they want that investigation to finish first. 

I’ve literally never heard of such a thing, that a legislative investigation took priority and precedence over an executive branch investigation by the DOJ. And there’s a reason for that, Jan.

Mr. Jekielek:

Do you think they’ll wait all the way through until all the congressional investigations related to J6 will happen?

Mr. Patel:

The Republicans have an opportunity here. We haven’t talked about this, but the reason that the January 6th committee has been allowed to steamroll ahead and the DOJ has said, “We’ll take a pause,” is because the DOJ knows that if the January 6th committee releases all of its information, all of its footage, all of its depositions, all of its documents, then the DOJ is going to own a mountain of exculpatory evidence related to Jan 6th prosecutions that have yet to date been disclosed to any defense counsel representing a Jan 6th-related matter. And to me as a former public defender and just a guy who likes basic due process in the constitution, that is wildly offensive and unlawful.

The Department of Justice is taking an active position to prosecute people when they have not fully investigated the case, and know there’s information out there that might be beneficial to a number of the defendants they are currently prosecuting. That is about as unAmerican as it gets. 

What I hope Republicans do on day one is go in there and say, “Okay, what are all these documents? Anything that’s not classified, it is released immediately to the Department of Justice, and to the public,” so that we can at least look at these documents and evidence and information.

I’m not saying all or most of it’s going to be helpful to January 6th defendants, but some of it might be. That’s what the Constitution and due process requires. What’s going to happen when you have a Brady violation, as we call it? A Brady violation is when the Department of Justice intentionally and recklessly withholds from the defense evidence of innocence or evidence that’s exculpatory in nature. And some of these people have already been convicted. So, what happens when their defense attorneys go back to court and say, “Judge, we found about this witness that the government knew about but it hid from us”?

That’s a fundamental Brady violation that should reverse a conviction. And these judges and prosecutors should want to ensure convictions that are going to stand the test of time. But they’ve shown us over and over again, they don’t care about that. They care about the politicization of DOJ and FBI. 

You’re going to see some glaring Brady violation pleadings by defense counsels, if the Republicans make this move. And as you suggested at the top of this question, “Should the January 6th committee continue its work?”

In a form I agree with this individual. Yes, it should, with a different leadership structure and a different mission. If we find something, we put it out. What’s the point of a congressional investigation that withholds the information it discovers? That’s like if Devin and I ran the Russiagate investigations and said, “Well, we’re not going to show you anything.” 

The purpose of congressional constitutional oversight is accountability to the American people by disclosing the findings of your investigation. It’s the one difference that separates DOJ investigations from congressional investigations, and this committee has failed to disclose its findings to the American people.

Mr. Jekielek:

The other aspect of what Stephen McIntyre mentioned that’s very interesting is if the January 6th committee is continued in its current form, though under new leadership, Congress can basically bind all the people that are involved in it to not leak information to people they may want to leak information to, for example, this new special counsel, which is what his point was. What do you think?

Mr. Patel:

In theory, it’s a novel idea. In reality, do you think Adam Schiff’s going to stop leaking material of confidential material to the press so he can get on the Sunday talk shows? No, not at all. I just don’t think it works in reality. I appreciate the sentiment, but the best way to destroy the corruption of this committee’s withholding of information is just to put everything out there.

That’s the whole point of Congress, when it comes to investigations. Why are you hiding it? For this DOJ to knowingly allow the suppression of possible Brady information and the like is as egregious of a crime as prosecuting someone without having fully investigated the case. That is what they’re doing. 

That is what they’ve told judges, and judges have gone along with it. What should have happened is a delay in those proceedings or a demand from Congress to release these materials with immediacy. Maybe we’ll see that come January with the new leadership.

Mr. Jekielek:

This is actually very interesting, because we’re going to be talking about Republican investigations, but this is really one of the key Republican investigations that we just discussed. So we outlined the top three that you believed were at the top. Where do you think we stand now?

Mr. Patel:

I still think we’ve outlined a lot of the DOJ and FBI investigations that need to happen in part with what Christopher Wray I believe has been lying about, not to even mention the use of his private government jet. Then, he gets caught lying about that to Congress and Senator Hawley. And then, there’s so many other things. 

There’s the search warrant applications that we use in the FISA court correctly, the Jan 6th prosecutions, and the confidential human source corruption cover up network. Then, we move to actual investigations that Congress is doing like Jan 6th, but we’ve outlined the other two that need to happen with immediacy; Fauci, all things COVID-origins, the vaccine, and the rollout, and the border being the last one.

These are monster investigations independently. A lot of committees are going to need to focus on that. We haven’t even talked about Hunter Biden’s laptop, which apparently is going to be the focus, rightfully so, of one of the committees, it was just announced this week.

Mr. Jekielek:

I thought Tom Fitton kind of astutely noted, basically, that CBS waited two federal election cycles to admit to the fact that this is a real thing. Interesting.

Mr. Patel:

Well, CBS, for its part and the mainstream media for its part intentionally did that. I saw Jim Jordan say he was going to subpoena the 51 intelligence officials that signed the letter that falsely stated that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation.

Mr. Jekielek:

It had all the hallmarks, so they kind of avoided it a little bit?

Mr. Patel:

Listen, that’s government cutespeak by saying we can get our headline out there, because the headlines for everybody else was Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation. The word hallmark didn’t appear anywhere. But you know what, it’s worth doing. You should subpoena every one of them, and haul them in public, put them under oath and let them lie. Let them say, “Well, we said hallmark, so we didn’t…” 

You’re saying you, the former CIA director, you, the former Secretary of Defense, you, the former director of the NSA signed onto a letter knowing it had false information, and your out was a cheeky excuse like hallmark? Yes, let’s put those people on blast, so we never believe them again. And make sure any letter they sign in the future, and any application they have for another government position is thoroughly vetted by the American people.

It’s a great start, but it’s just that, it’s just the start. With the Hunter Biden laptop investigation that encompasses DOJ, FBI, intel, foreign affairs, was there pay-for-play? There are many other matters. I think it was Representative Comer who’s likely going to be the chair of the oversight and government reform committee, or OGR as we call it. He seems to be hot to trot on all things Hunter Biden laptop.

Mr. Jekielek:

There is a blueprint for this investigation that claims something like 400 instances of illegalities, 400-plus instances of…

Mr. Patel:

It’s pretty simple, Jan. For CBS to now come out and say, and I read part of their article, “Oh, we did a forensic analysis of the laptop.” Oh okay. It took you two years to do that. You chose not to do it two years ago, when the information was available to you. You could have talked to individuals like Tony Bobulinski. He was willing to talk to anyone and everyone about it. 

This is a guy who worked in political circles affiliated to the Democratic party and didn’t even vote for Trump. But these are the intentional disinformation campaigns, these people in the fake news media and some of the bureaucrats on the hill want to put on. They know the questions not to ask and who not to talk to, so it doesn’t disrupt their narrative.

The FBI is the experts on that by knowing what sources not to go to, and what questions not to ask, and what information not to divulge. And CBS is running this parallel op, and now they’re what? Trying to reclaim their credibility. 

I was at Mar-a-Lago for President Trump’s announcement. And the CBS reporter came up to me and said, “Hey, I’d love to interview you for these ongoing investigations.” And my response to them was, basically, “When you guys start reporting truthfully, as it happens, then you can call me and I’ll give you an interview.”

Mr. Jekielek:

You mentioned one possible head of committee, so let’s talk a bit about that. But then also McCarthy, who looks like he’s going to be the Speaker of the House, he’s basically saying that there’s some people he’s not going to allow to be on committee.

Mr. Patel:

Let’s start there. Kevin McCarthy, who I know and worked with when I was on the hill, it’s likely that he’ll become speaker. He has to date kept his promise that he was going to jettison or remove people who have either violated their oaths or their duties to Congress or the American people. And with Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar, Kevin McCarthy has said he’s going to remove them from all committee positions.

Effectively, what that means, Jan, is if you’re a member of Congress and you can’t sit on a committee, you’re neutered. You can participate in the voting process, you can attempt to create legislation unilaterally, and that is by yourself. But the committees are where all the work is done. The committees are where all the oversight investigations are done. The committees are where all the budgeting process takes place. 

And so you are taking a chair, and remember Adam Schiff is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a member of the Gang of Eight, and saying , “Not only are you not ranking or chairman, you’re off the committee entirely.”

And what better person to make an example of then the man who’s been lying to the American public for the better part of a decade about Russiagate, about Ukraine impeachment, about Ciaramella and the whistleblower falsehood that they brought forward, and about January 6th, and about so many other matters. He’s basically said, “You’ve continuously lied for years. You’re off the committee.”

Swalwell, slept with a Chinese spy, and literally, the man was on the House Intelligence Committee. Just hit pause. I’m not judging the guy for who has private relationships with, but hit pause and say, “Republican member on that committee had sexual relations with the Chinese spy.” What would be the political and media outcry if that scenario happened? We wouldn’t even be talking about it.

Then, Ilhan Omar and her antisemitic remarks, have rightfully so, put her in the same pool as these other two individuals. And I don’t think he should stop there. I think there’s others that this needs to happen to. And let’s remind our audience, we didn’t start this, the Democrats are the ones, when they were in the majority of the last two years, who kicked off people, Republicans, from their committee assignments. The Democrats set the rules and the Republicans need to follow through and execute on the same level playing field. And hopefully, we’ll see more than just three. I think three’s insufficient. I think there’s more, but it’s a start.

Mr. Jekielek:

What do you think the reaction will be if such high prominent democratic congressional members are removed from committees?

Mr. Patel:

It’s interesting, because from a perspective of an Adam Schiff or a Swalwell, I firmly believe that these individuals are in Congress to serve their own ego. And when they’re on these committee assignments, they get the big media, as we say, going into the sticks, they get the big media interviews. They get the big Sunday talk shows. 

They get the big assignments from their congressional party to say, “Okay, I’m going to be the spokesperson for the Russiagate investigation, for Jan sixth, for Hunter Biden’s laptop,” for what have you. Now they’re not going to be able to say any of that. What are they going to say? “I’m participating in nothing.”

That’s why I said you’ve effectively neutered them. That’s going to be something you see. But you’ll of course see the media and the hypocrites in the radical Left wing arm of the media say, “Oh, my God, this is unprecedented. How dare they, the Republicans, kick off these individuals from these committees. It’s never happened before.” 

But as we know it’s definitely happened before. And it was the Democrats that led that way. So we need to constantly remind people that it’s the rules that are in place that were never used by the Republicans, but the Democrats use them, and now the Republicans should as well.

Mr. Jekielek:

Kash, as we finish up, I can’t help but think there might be a lot of resistance to getting out a lot of the information during these investigations we’ve been discussing. You mentioned this concept of fencing or kind of defunding or defunding parts. How would this actually look?

Mr. Patel:

January 6th is a perfect example, but it applies to all the investigations we’re talking about, whether it’s just for Wray’s plane, the use of confidential human sources to cover up FBI corruption and DOJ matters, et cetera. We talked about it last week. We called it fencing the money. 

It’s a congressional move, real quick, where the congressional committees of jurisdiction, so judiciary for FBI and DOJ, intel for CIA, armed services, for DOD, have the ability to put a imaginary fence, for lack of a better word, around buckets of money that are due to these agencies and departments that they need to operate. 

We did it once during Russiagate, but we didn’t do it again, because Paul Ryan would not let us do it again. So hopefully, the next Speaker of the House gives us authority to his chairman and women to do when they see fit.

And what they do is you put holds on pockets of money, buckets of money, and you say, “Well, this committee has asked you questions in this letter for documents, for witnesses, for information. We’ve given you a congressional subpoena. You have failed to respond. You have failed to produce it.” And normally, they just, as you’ve seen Chris Wray do time and time again, is just give Congress the Heisman. 

Or be saved by the Democratic majority currently and their chairmanship and say, “Oh, you don’t have to answer those questions. It’s okay.” Well, once that changes in January, I believe, and I want every committee to do it, it’s to start putting fences around the monies for these departments and agencies and be selective.

Don’t put a fence around money related to paying your employees. I don’t think that’s entirely fair. There’s so many men and women there are doing the job every day. That’s not what I mean. But do it around projects that these government gangsters, as I call them, care about, or care so much about more than actually doing the job that they will respond with immediacy. 

The perfect example I can think of for DOJ and FBI is, it’s been going on for a long time that FBI headquarters is going to be moved out of Washington DC. And then we’ve said in the past, I believe FBI headquarters should be disbanded entirely. But that’s a separate conversation.

But they’re going to move to what’s looking like Virginia or Maryland and what does that require? Money, a lot of it. To move an entire law enforcement agency’s HQ from one location to another is a multimillion dollar taxpayer funded process. And the first fence that should go up is around the FBI’s budget allocated to this move, because Chris Wray cares about it so much and so does this DOJ.

And it will, I believe, with great effect and speed, cause them to produce this information when Republicans have the majority. That’s just one example, a great example of what can happen. You can take similar moves. Look, the Pentagon’s not moving and the CIA is not moving locations, but they have so many programs related to replacing old fleets of vehicles or upgrading aircraft that people use to get from place to place or that government secretaries and cabinet officials use to travel around the world. You can block those monies from being expensed to those specific line items until they cooperate. And that’s exactly what needs to happen.

I’ve been saying it for some time. I introduced it on this show, that concept, and I hope people educate themselves about fencing the money. I hope the Republicans act, because it’s the only thing that will cause a response from these agencies and departments who owe us, the American people, the accountability, especially, when it relates to the Republican majority exposing corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse at these agencies and departments.

Because the one thing they should never be able to do is, basically, kick Congress in the face and tell them, “We’re not cooperating with you, because you’re never going to do anything to us. You don’t have the ability to do anything to us.” And that leaves a gaping hole in the constitutional congressional oversight that these committees have to play, and America is owed these answers, so they should start fencing money.

Mr. Jekielek:

For this week’s, shout out everyone I wanted to wish everybody the most amazing Thanksgiving. We’re incredibly grateful, both at Kash’s Corner and at the Epoch Times as a whole, for having you as our audience, for having you on our live chats. Thank you so very much.

Mr. Patel:

I just want to compliment that by saying we are so appreciative of the support from the audience for Kash’s Corner. We’re so thankful for the amazing Epoch Times and Epoch TV crew and staff for helping us make this a reality every week. We really hope everybody has a wonderful Thanksgiving, gets to spend some downtime with their family and friends and loved ones, and also watches a whole lot of Kash’s Corner. Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

Mr. Jekielek:

And just as a final sign off for today, people keep asking me about these cowboy boots. So here we are, we got them.

Mr. Patel:

That’s right. We took Jan cowboy boot shopping and he got this amazing pair of boots, and I couldn’t let him be alone.

So for those of you that don’t know what we’re talking about, that’s because you’re not on the live chat. We have a great live chat room every Friday night on Kash’s Corner, where thousands of people participate and they wanted to see the cowboy boots. Let’s put in your request on the next live chat on Friday night.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Truth Social:


Read More
Related Videos