search icon
Live chat

Kash’s Corner: FBI Whistleblower Goes Public; Nord Stream Pipeline Explosions; ‘CHS Corruption Cover Up Network’

In this livestream episode, we’ll discuss FBI whistleblower Steve Friend’s allegations of FBI abuse in the handling of probes into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, the recent Nord Stream pipeline explosions, the Igor Danchenko case, and what Kash Patel calls the “confidential human source corruption cover-up network.” We also touch on the situation at the border, and the significance of the White House walking back so many of President Joe Biden’s statements.

We’ll be streaming at you from Phoenix, Arizona. Join us on Friday, Sep. 30 at 10 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT.

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


Kash Patel:

Hey, everybody and welcome to Kash’s Corner, West Coast Edition. Jan, where are we?

Jan Jekielek:

We’re here in Phoenix, Arizona and we’ve got a lot to cover today. We’ve got this amazing Nord Stream 2 development. It looks like the pipeline is totally cut off. We’ve got the whistleblower, Steve Friend, having given out his entire statement. We’re going to look into that. We’re going to look at whistleblowers in general.

It looks like there’s some kind of a retribution potentially happening against them. I was speaking with Alan Dershowitz recently, and he talked about the shoe is on the other foot test, so we definitely want to talk about that today. Also this confidential human source corruption network, a term that you coined, and finally the border, given where we are in Phoenix, and a bit about fentanyl.

Mr. Patel:

Wow. We’d better get started. But we have to remind our audience, we’re coming at you live with a special edition of Kash’s Corner. So, thanks everybody for tuning in and thank you to the Epoch team and our guest host out here in Arizona. We’re thrilled to be here.

Mr. Jekielek:

And just a little bit of information for everybody out there. What we’re going to do, we’re going to do our regular Kash’s Corner. We’re going to do a couple of Q and As from the live chat, so if you’re on there, please put your questions in. We’re going to pick two of those. And finally we’re going to go quiet and we’re going to do a little bit of a private Q and A for the people here in the livestream audience.

Mr. Patel:

Sorry, you have to be here to see it.

Mr. Jekielek:

Yes. Let’s start with Nord Stream 2 now. And so this is kind of massive development. It staggers me to think about the geopolitical implications of these pipelines being interrupted, possibly in a semi-permanent way, so why don’t we start there. What is the deal here?

Mr. Patel:

Yes, so a quick primer on Nord Stream 2. If you remember, in the Trump administration it wasn’t the sexy thing to talk about, but for us it was a big national security component. Nord Stream 2 is a Russian-built pipeline that gives money to Putin and Russia and his federation, that supplies energy to our number one ally, the biggest powerhouse in Europe, Germany.

And what President Trump did was he shut down the pipeline’s construction. Not physically, but what we were able to do was level our international sanctions policies against the people and the materials involved, because we knew it was a national security threat to American and American interests. If he finished that pipeline, Germany and others would have access to cheap energy and be directly funding our adversary Putin.

But that wasn’t the only thing. From my perspective, specific national security front, is the intelligence value. There’s a direct connection of intelligence that the Russians, as we now know and have always known as our adversary, collect intel on us Americans overseas, and our Western allies. So if you’re in Germany, the number one powerhouse, that was the reason we stopped it.

And kudos to President Trump and Ambassador Ric Grenell, my dear friend, who was the ambassador of Germany at the time, who took many rounds to the head for shutting down the pipeline, including from Angela Merkel, who was the chancellor then. So like any other national security success story in the Trump administration that was lambasted, we now come full circle under the Biden administration and we have an explosion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and thus an explosion in the media as to what this means.

Mr. Jekielek:

I remember one of the very first episodes of American Thought Leaders, the other show that I do was with Anna Maria Anders, who was the Secretary of State for Poland at the time. We were talking about Nord Stream 2 and the national security implications for Poland, and she had said something interesting. She said, “Poland doesn’t want it. We have this great LNG, liquid natural gas, shipping facility. We should be getting it from the U.S., but actually it would be Ukraine that would be more impacted even than Poland,” so what are the implications of this stream being shut down?

Mr. Patel:

Well, yes. Let’s give a quick reminder of the current geopolitical landscape. Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine, starts another war, and is on the cusp of starting another world war, and then what does he say just last week? He puts nuclear weapons on the table, literally. And we talked about it last week on the show. But briefly, you have to take him seriously, because we didn’t expect him and I didn’t expect him to actually go in and invade.

But now you have a man who is in control forever, as long as he’s alive, of the Russian Federation, and they have the largest arsenal of nuclear warheads on planet Earth, literally. And most of them, not surprisingly, are pointed at their adversaries, their enemies. And so then he comes on the world stage and says, “Whatever it takes to win in the Ukraine, including…” And I’m paraphrasing. “Including nuclear weapons.” That is a significant escalation on the global stage.

And he knows he can do that, we talked about it. Because we have a failed commander-in-chief on the national security front who has no diplomatic engagement skills overseas, because he no longer has the skills that President Trump had to get the job done. And what happens is, we are losing territory and allies. France isn’t going to enter in and step up against Putin, neither is the UK, neither is Germany, neither is Spain. They’re always going to look to us, but right now they can’t look to us, so Putin’s looking past us.

And the problem with Nord Stream 2, the explosion, is it is the perfect, to use that word, justification for Putin to go all-in. His centerpiece for energy was effectively impeded by someone, and I’m happy to say that on live TV. I don’t think it was an accident. Jaws didn’t run into it down in the North Atlantic there. But it was attacked and you saw visible bubbles in that part of the ocean where it was attacked, and that shut down the pipeline effectively. So that is a direct attack on the Russian Federation from a Putin perspective. Now what he’s thinking is, who did it?

Mr. Jekielek:

And so there’s a lot of theories out there as to who did it. And so I’ve heard… These are the ones I’ve heard. I’ve heard Russia actually did it. I’ve heard Ukraine, the obvious one. UK. The U.S. was doing some activities right in that area. There’s this bombshell episode. Tucker Carlson is basically accusing the U.S. The former Polish defense minister, Sikorski, said, “Thank you, America.” He deleted the tweet later. So there’s a lot of… And then there’s some kind of… Maybe a little more unexpected possible actors, including something we talked about earlier tonight, China.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, so just to run through those real quickly, Jan. Back from my time as deputy director of national intelligence, we have an understanding of what our capabilities are, and we’re of course not going to get into them, but the bottom line is, Putin has a justification, whether China did it and made it look like the U.S. did it, or whether Russia did it. It would be counterintuitive to many who aren’t used to the national security space, but if they did it for the purpose of having a global justification to continue Putin’s war, right after he made the announcement about nuclear weapons, what better justification from their perspective could there be? 

And I’m not arguing for it – of course not – because it ends up in nuclear war, but our two adversaries could have done it and staged a sort of reverse operation. I don’t know. I don’t have access to the intelligence. I don’t know if the United States did it. I read media reporting that our government denied it. It would’ve been insanely stupid for us if it comes to pass that that happened. But now I think, irrespective of that, Putin has his justification to escalate even further. And as you just saw in the media this week, he went and took another swath of the Ukraine, so that is an escalation of war.

And what does our Congress do? A story for another day, but writes a check to 12-and-a-half billion dollars. I’ve said, the Ukraine is our modern version of Afghanistan. We’re pouring money into a system that has no banking infrastructure, and we’re literally flying in cash with no accountability. So our taxpayer money is going to fund what? We don’t know. The cause in general is worth it, but I side with President Trump on these issues—what about 12-and-a-half billion for American families? And so that’s a story for another day, but the bottom line is, this is not good. We’ll monitor it and we’ll see where it goes.

Mr. Jekielek:

And finally, the scene of the crime. The other option, by the way, is that it could have been an accident, and no one really believes that. But the scene of the crime, it’s deep underwater. Everything gets washed away. Will we ever really know who did it, unless there’s some kind of deep collection that’s deeply classified and that is unavailable to most of us?

Mr. Patel:

Yes, not speaking to any of our collection capabilities, but yes, the pipeline’s literally at the bottom of the ocean. It’s not like it’s suspended in the middle of the sea, and you can just get down there. It’s not like there’s videography that you can just look and be like, “Oh, look what happened,” like hitting record on the CCTV of a bank robbery. So it’s going to take time. And the U.S. from an intelligence perspective may want to make it a priority in the IC to focus our efforts on collection to see what happened, and then ultimately a declassification process to tell the world what in fact happened.

But here’s a problem. No matter what we put out, Russia and China are never going to believe it. So as I said earlier, Putin has his justification, and now it’s literally time for America to actually enter the global stage. I just don’t think we have the ability with our current command-in-chief to do it.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s shift gears and look a little more internally now. We’ve had this kind of incredible statement put out by a special agent, Steven Friend. He’s a SWAT team member. I’m going to read something from his statement here that he put out, okay? So this is actually very recent. “On Friday, August 19th, 2022, I spoke with my frontline supervisor, SSRA Greg Federico, on two separate occasions to disclose my concerns about potential DIOG policy violation employed during the investigative process.

I responded that it was inappropriate to use an FBI SWAT team to arrest a subject for misdemeanor offenses, and opined that the subject may likely face extended detainment and biased jury pools in Washington DC.” This is what at least one special agent is saying, and is going out and basically risking his career as a whistleblower.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. We’ll get to the whistleblower stuff. We’ll get to Ciaramella. We’ll even get to shift tonight on some literally breaking news just this evening. But what you have is… What you’ve noticed is the DIOG. The DIOG is basically the manual for FBI field agents on how they operate, and they’re supposed to follow that as if it were law, because technically it is to them and their operations. And what he’s saying, Agent Friend, who we now know is a whistleblower and went in under the Whistleblower Protections Act as many do to expose government waste fraud and corruption…

He’s saying, “I reported it and my superiors basically shredded the DIOG, our manuals, and said ‘Go away,'” which is the exact opposite of what’s supposed to happen. The chain of command is supposed to take that and run it up. We’ve talked infinitely about the failures of Chris Wray’s FBI on other episodes. We won’t dive back into that here. But I think the whistleblower angle is worth talking about tonight.

Mr. Jekielek:

This is the thing. Apparently, people are saying that he’s being retributed against. There’s some kind of retribution. On the other hand, the FBI is saying, “Hey, this is just what we do. It’s happening.”

Mr. Patel:

Yes, that’s outrageous, and it’s also illegal. In my time as a national security advisor for the House Intelligence Committee… We are one of the committees that receives whistleblowers. I’ve actually received whistleblowers in my time in government, and there’s a federal statute on the books, the Whistleblower Protection Act. What it says in short is, if you as a government employee in any agency or department see some form of corruption, you don’t have to be the expert and know it’s corruption or know it’s waste or know it’s fraud. You have the right under U.S. law, and rightly so, to come to Congress, have your identity protected and sealed, and get protections that allow you to continue to work. But specifically, as you pointed out, no retribution.

The problem that we’ll unpack here tonight is the double standard of justice, the two-tier system of justice we’ve talked about on previous episodes. It doesn’t just exist in the courtroom that we’ve talked about endlessly when it comes to prosecutions based on politics versus evidence and law, but now it’s bleeding over into the legislative branch in the whistleblower protection matters.

We bring up Ciaramella. Everybody remembers this guy. He worked for me when I was the deputy director of National Intelligence—everybody in the IC did—and he claimed whistleblower protection. I’m not taking that away from him. He went to Congress, and they protected his name and identity, and rightfully so. I will always say that. If you say you’re a whistleblower, then you deserve those protections. And his name was never leaked. Ask our audience to go back and look at those times. Nobody leaked it. They protected it.

And that’s what should have happened to Agent Friend. But what happened was actually illegal. His badge and gun, the means by which FBI agents actually perform their duties in the field, were taken from him. And this is after director Chris Wray went up to Congress and testified to Senator Grassley under oath whether whistleblowers would be retaliated against. He said no under oath, so he has just committed another offense under the law and lied to Congress. Because we have non-irrefutable proof that basically he is no longer able to work. Not only that, but he’s also been outed.

And so you have to question the people in Congress who are in these positions of power right now, who are the same folks that were in the positions back when Russiagate started. Same folks that are running the January 6th unselect committee. Same folks that ran impeachment one. They continue to leak when it’s favorable to them, and they continue to leak false information. And for them, it’s okay to retaliate, because this story contradicts their false narrative, the disinformation camp that they’ve been putting out for so long, which is that the FBI and DOJ are not corrupt and have not become politicized. But we’ve gone on at extensive length to talk about why that’s not the case. 

So it’s one of those things that bothers me the most. But what is encouraging is the amount of whistleblowers. We talked on our last show about my friend Jim Jordan and Senator Grassley receiving not one or two, but dozens of whistleblower complaints. And what they’re doing is they’re setting the field, because as is likely going to happen in November, is the gavels, the majorities, will flip, and when that occurs… Elise Stefanik, a friend of mine who’s in the house in a leadership position, just wrote, literally, “The subpoenas are coming.”

That’s what they’re prepping. These letters that we put out publicly on Epoch Times and Fight with Cash and everywhere else, they’re going to be able to tell the director of the FBI, and the Attorney General, that we told you to preserve these records. We told you to call us to come see us. Now they can ignore them because they’re not in the majority, and Chris Wray has not gotten back to either the Senator or the Congressman.

But once that flips… We saw the power of congressional subpoenas and its abuse by the Democrats. We saw the power of congressional subpoenas and how it was rightly applied when we did Russiagate. And so you can haul in the documents and publicize them and you can see if they hid the documents after members of Congress told them not to. Then, you can subpoena them in-person and put them in the seat, not for a day, but for a week or a month if it takes that long, and make sure Chris Wray isn’t hopping aboard a government expense-paid trip to the Adirondacks on a private jet, because he doesn’t want to answer the tough questions, and because he thinks there’s no corruption and nobody’s being retaliated against. This is incontrovertible proof that Christopher Wray lied to the FBI and whistleblowers are being retaliated against. And if that weren’t bad enough, there’s the next component.

Mr. Jekielek:

And the shoe is on the other foot test. This is very interesting. I think this is actually worth… If you’re talking to people of a different, let’s say, political persuasion, I think this is actually something useful to consider. Because you look at the treatment of Ciaramella, the incredible lengths to which you got all these congressional members saying, “We have to protect this person with everything we’ve got,” and on the other hand we have Agent Friend here who it looks like he’s being thrown under a bus. Completely different treatment.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. Let me set that juxtaposition up. I always go back to Russiagate, because it’s one of the things I know well. But what if we told you that in 2016 that Donald Trump’s campaign had hired a foreign intelligence asset to collect fake information, then Donald Trump’s campaign went and hijacked the FBI, then they intentionally, the FBI and DOJ, lied to a federal court, so they could illegally and unlawfully surveil Hillary Clinton’s campaign? What would’ve been the story then?

Because that is the shoe on the other foot. That’s exactly what happened, except Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are like this in those roles. And it’s been proven, because we put out the truth in those documents. So when you say the shoe is on the other foot test that Alan Dershowitz commonly refers to and he talked about on your show, this is a perfect example of why the two-tier system of justice, not just in the court of law—which isn’t the focus of tonight’s episode—but why the two-tier system of justice is in Congress at the legislative branch, in the whistleblower camp.

And then you have to ask, what is their reasoning behind it? Their reasoning behind it is, and this has always really been the end target, they’ve worked improperly to say, what’s our end goal? Get Trump, prove X, that he was a Russian asset, and say he stole this or whatever. And then they manufacture the evidence in reverse, the complete opposite of what’s supposed to happen in the USA, especially in the 21st century. And then you have whistleblowers, and what they’re doing is they’re making it almost impossible for whistleblowers to come forward. What they’re doing is they’re breaking the law, and what they’re doing is they’re trying to freeze out future whistleblowers from coming up.

But let me tell you this. I was at an event in Paradise Valley last night, and an FBI agent, a retired 20-year old agent came up to me, twenty-one years on the job, and said, “There’s tons of us that support Agent Friend and the whistleblowers that are coming out.” I knew that to be the case, because when I was a terrorism prosecutor, we were running investigations all across America and all over the world chasing bad guys. That’s what the FBI does. That’s what they’re supposed to do. But they’ve been bootstrapped by its politicization under Chris Wray, Merrick Garland, and Joe Biden. So, it’s heartening to see that there’s so many in there that just want to get back to doing the field level work. 

And we talked about how last week the whistleblower campaigns are exposing how the FBI further corrupted the whistleblower program. Because what did they do? They allowed field level agent investigations across America to be scooped up without their knowledge, dumped into the Washington headquarters behemoth at the FBI, and then lie and falsely produce statistics of domestic violent extremists, so that Chris Wray could go to Congress and say that domestic violence extremism, especially when related to January 6th and Donald Trump, is on the rise.

This whistleblower and others literally blew the whistle on that and said, “You took my case and you lied about it.” Domestic violent extremism is not on the rise. White supremacy is not the number one national security threat as Joe Biden has repeatedly said, but they want this political narrative. They want the politicization to continue, because then the fake news mafia will continue to glorify them as long as it is allowed, and these people will continue to chase headlines instead of doing their job. And that’s one of my biggest problems with why our law enforcement agencies are so broken, why our IC and DOD are so corrupted. Because nobody in America really has faith in them anymore. 

Here’s the kicker, if that wasn’t enough. Everyone knows crime is on the rise, and tragically so. But these whistleblowers, you know what they showed? These guys were chasing down criminals who were committing child sexual exploitation crimes. They were prevented from continuing those investigations, because those field investigations were hijacked out of the field where the work is done, given to the Washington behemoth headquarters unit, and traded. They were changed to say, you’re no longer working on that case, which was a good case. Outside of terrorists, what’s worse than harming children? 

And we’re going to talk about domestic violent extremism, so Joe Biden can go to Independence Hall and give this ludicrous speech on the direction that the country is going, and calling 80 million Americans domestic violence extremists, and to have his cabinet come out and say that white extremism and white supremacy is the number one national security threat. No, it’s not. It never has been. It never will be. And that is just the biggest pile of disinformation. We’ve talked about these disinformation campaigns they put out, because they continue to impact the voting base, and that’s their end goal.

And thankfully to great organizations like the Epoch Times, we’re able to not only chip away at it, I think we’re literally blowing it up. Which is what many Americans, when you and I travel around the country, ask for. They want it blown up. I will say, and I’m pretty unpopular with this following perspective, a lot of people want to do away with the FBI and DOJ, but we can’t do that. We have to completely overhaul it and remove all the bad actors and hold them accountable.

The last component of the whistleblower stuff that we really don’t talk about a lot, is that it does lead to accountability. Sometimes it leads to manufactured accountability. Ciaramella started Ukraine impeachment one, then the Russiagate characters. Enter Fiona Hill and her sidekick, Alexander Vindman. They come in and lie, literally about me, and throw me in the middle of a presidential impeachment to say I was somehow Trump’s Ukraine whisperer. That was started by Ciaramella and his whistleblower campaign. They wanted a presidential impeachment and they got it. That was the end result. That was a disinformation campaign they wanted, so they could say “President Trump was impeached. Don’t reelect him,” or “Don’t put him back into any position of power.”

And so what ticks me off, and I always say all roads lead back to Russiagate, but it’s almost all roads always lead back to watermelon head. And I know you don’t like me using that name, but Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in Congress in the last 250 years. And what just broke that we’re going to talk about right now is that Adam Schiff met with the whistleblower.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, exactly. We just heard about it, kind of hot off the presses maybe half an hour ago. But apparently he met or had already met with Ciaramella prior to Ciaramella coming out as a whistleblower, which is a huge problem.

Mr. Patel:

That’s not how it’s supposed to go. And if you recall, and our audience can go back and look at it, Adam Schiff went to the podium day after day after day saying, “I know nothing about this. We’re not going to discuss it. We’re going to protect it.” And then he, Adam Schiff, led the prosecution in the impeachment trial in the Senate of President Donald Trump. Talk about someone who was conflicted out of the game. Because he was part of the hoax that brought Ciaramella in, manufactured that false accusation, and then pedaled it out to the world. And not surprisingly, he has lied about almost everything in his life. But now he lied just to set up a presidential impeachment. And that’s what I was talking about, these disinformation campaigns. 

These radical Left liberals are much more evil than we will ever be, and I don’t ever want to be that evil. They want to go in and say, “We can do whatever we want so long as we get Trump, because we’re saving the world from a duly elected president that we don’t agree with on foreign policy—a foreign policy that would have never had the Nord Stream 2 explode, that would never have had Ukraine invaded by Russia, and that would have CCP on the downward spiral instead of the upward spin.

When you break through that and ask them, “What didn’t you actually like about him?” They just didn’t like the man, and so their job was to get the man. And if Adam Schiff isn’t investigated for this and thrown off every single committee—I’m going to call all my friends that I used to work with on Capitol Hill come January one and say, “Adam Schiff, Swalwell, and company cannot be on any single committee in Congress, period.” They did that to us. They showed us what the powers of Congress can do.

And then he should be investigated, because he lied to the world about his interactions with Ciaramella, who was a whistleblower, and I can’t stress enough, that started a presidential impeachment. Now, your history is way better than mine, but I can’t remember the last time a president was actually impeached. It’s a significant process and escalation, and it’s reserved for the time when it actually shows a crime, not when it shows the manufacturer of fake information to show a fake crime.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, I know, and technically the Senate never ratified the impeachment, so I don’t know where that stands. But yes, it’s very unusual.

Mr. Patel:

Well, the Senate voted it down. Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:

Yes, exactly. Yes.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, so the impeachment is just to bring in charges. But my problem was, what I was saying was, the lawyers representing the Democratic Party on that impeachment, one of the lead lawyers was Adam Schiff presenting the case to the Senate. The Senate acts as a jury in a presidential impeachment trial. And what you’re referring to is the Senate voted it down, and found Trump not guilty of any crimes or improprieties related to that impeachment charge. 

But the guy that found and manufactured the evidence with Ciaramella was the prosecutor in the case against the target of the investigation. That is the ultimate, from a prosecutorial standpoint, conflict of interest. But he knew what he was doing and he thought he would never get exposed. Thanks to, I think it was John Solomon and his fantastic reporting we now see what I’ve been saying for years, that I thought he met with him for sure, and it will come out, and it now has.

Mr. Jekielek:

There are also all these different FBI agents or ex-FBI agents that are coming out in support of agent Friend. So, there’s a little bit of hope amidst all of this.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, there is a chorus, a lot of guys I used to work with. A lot of folks have to stay quiet and I understand why. But a lot of folks that are out after 20, 30 years in the bureau are saying, “Why is he being retaliated against?” And beyond that they’re saying the reason America doesn’t trust the FBI anymore is because you, Chris Wray, and company, along with his jackal partners in Congress, have destroyed its integrity because you keep lying to the American public. You keep bringing political investigations.

We have to conclude on the whistleblower stuff, but we’ll stay on it. I think it’s going to be just an explosive topic. I don’t think you’ve seen any real damaging information yet, and that’s scary. Because to me, this is very damaging. But when you put in perspective, you’re going to see so much worse information. One of the other whistleblowers that came forward was on Dan Bongino’s show. He literally said, “Wait until you see the acts of sexual complicity that the seventh floor at the FBI was engaging in during this entire time.” I was the guy that exposed the Lisa Page, Peter Strzok thing. I know how that organization at that level with the political operatives work, so there’s a lot more coming.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s this whole other dimension, too. It’s about the confidential human sources. We’re learning now that on January 6th, there were at least six among the Oath Keepers, and then also we do definitely want to talk about what you call the confidential human source corruption network, I believe is your term. But it’s amazing how many people were… What are the implications of knowing that there are six confidential human sources in that group?

Mr. Patel:

Speaking now as a former prosecutor, you need confidential human sources for a lot of our cases. I needed them in the terrorism cases. You need them for a lot of the work that our field-level agents can’t get specific access to both around the country and overseas. So, I will always be an advocate for utilizing confidential human sources and undercover operatives. The problem I have, Jan…let’s rewind the clock back to Christopher Steele, and then we’ll get to Danchenko, and then we’ll get to January 6th. 

The confidential human source, the CHS network,as I call it now, the confidential human source corruption coverup network, is the problem that is going to destroy the FBI. They are spending taxpayer dollars hiring Christopher Steele, hiring Igor Dancheckov, hiring the folks in the Whitmer plot, hiring now the six confidential human sources in the January 6th prosecutions of one of the Oath Keeper guys. And what are we learning? Not that they were used properly, not that our government was using taxpayer money to protect our interests and safeguard our streets and our neighborhoods, but they were wasting money, as we went in-depth last week on Danchenko. They literally fired Christopher Steele after paying him for years, hired Bruce Ohr as a cutout, brought Chris Christopher Steele’s source, Danchenko in, and paid him for three-and-a-half years. Why? To cover up the corruption of the FBI. 

This is the problem that Devin and I faced when we ran Russiagate. We sent subpoenas to Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray. We never found out about Danchenko. We found out when you guys found out. Just think about that. The guys that ran the Russiagate investigation found out about Danchenko and the fact that he was a confidential human source when Durham made it public. They hid those documents from a congressional subpoena. That is another miscarriage of justice. But if that weren’t bad enough, you have to ask why are they doing that? 

We showed why they did it with Christopher Steele. They were hiding their corruption. They weren’t proving any criminal activity. To the contrary, they were proving their disinformation campaigns. So when you shift from Steele to Danchenko, what did he cover up? It turns out he’s covering up the FBI documentation about the corrupt, unlawful practices the FBI utilized in the Russiagate investigation. This guy, Danchenko, charged by John Durham, actually went to the FBI and told them, “I told Christopher Steele this stuff in a bar after a bunch of beers, and then I told you, the FBI, that this was total BS.” Think about that. And they were paying him. 

So the problem we have, and that I have with the confidential human source corruption coverup network is this—the FBI gets to say to a congressional request from an inquiry in Congress, because they know it’s coming when the gavels switch, “We have an ongoing investigation. Sources and methods are at risk. We can’t give you those documents.” They did that to us during Russiagate with Christopher Steele. They’re doing that now during Danchenko. And now we find out it’s likely they did it with January 6th by the use of six confidential human sources. So it begs the question, why doesn’t Congress have all those documents? What were you hiding? And we saw the videos. I’m not going to get into the Ray Epps stuff or anything like that on January 6th. But if confidential human sources were used validly and appropriately, then share it with the gang of eight and tell them and show them. But if they weren’t, it’s Congress’s job to come in and demand those documents and then release them publicly.

And they will say this, and mark my words, “You’re going to kill human sources. You’re going to crush investigations. You’re going to ruin relationships.” I will give you the empirical evidence to rebut that. When we outed Christopher Steele, no one died. That relationship didn’t end for him. It just ended because he broke the law, and we exposed the corruption. Durham’s doing the same thing with Danchenko, exposing the FBI’s corruption. Now we find out, quickly coming to the Oath Keepers case, that all these confidential human sources were there on January 6th. This is my problem. You can’t just airmail a confidential human source into a case. You have to recruit them, you got to train them, you got to put money into them. This is like a years-long process. And then you put them out into their area of expertise, for lack of a better word, and say, “How are we going to utilize these guys?”

So it’s not like they just said, “Hey, January 6th is going down. Congress is being surrounded. Go.” The question that has to be answered is, when did the FBI put those guys in, and where? And did those confidential human sources engage people who are not going to conduct criminal activity and convince them to do so? That is the definition of entrapment, which is illegal, and you can’t charge someone who’s been entrapped. My bigger problem is, who was running this confidential human source network and reporting it to Chris Wray? Because Chris Wray is constantly going to Congress and saying, “There’s nothing wrong with January 6th. There’s nothing wrong with the Durham prosecution of Danchenko. There are no cover ups, there is no corruption.” But now we see that.

I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves on the January 6th stuff, because that’s a topic that we’ll have to unpack over the next literally six, eight, 10 months, because we need to see the documentation. But I’m going to venture a guess here that once we see the documentation from January 6th, you will see the FBI’s confidential human source corruption cover up network on blast. It will make Christopher Steele and Danchenko look like the teacup ride at Disney World. Because these guys have inserted them into these matters. Why? Why would you say January 6th? Because they wanted a political target, a political prosecution, not one based on law and fact. And so, I hope our members that are heading to the majority in Congress will demand this information, and then you and I will put it out.

Mr. Jekielek:

Kash, I love the depth we went into today. We’ve hit the end of our time to some extent. We’re going to have to cover the border and fentanyl, and we’ll do that next episode. But we’ve got a couple of live chat questions here, so I’m going to read them out to you. One is from The Other Richard. He asks, “Do you think Durham will softball the FBI agents who are responsible for obfuscating or even lying about their part in Russiagate?”

Mr. Patel:

No. I think if you go back and look at our coverage of the Sussmann trial, even though it ended in acquittal, he didn’t softball it in his pleadings, and we put those pleadings out constantly on EpochTV, and on Fight with Kash. What we show the world in those pleadings is that Durham is putting on blast FBI agents like Heidi and others who are being currently investigated, and other agents who are being relieved of duty, shockingly, as a result of that investigation. Now we see more of that corruption coming into play in the Danchenko pleading. So, once that trial kicks off, I think we’ll have a more in-depth answer for him, but he hasn’t taken it lightly. Now, where people get confused is, ultimately it’s up to Merrick Garland to make the call on whether or not to go after those agents. So, the ire should be focused at him as to be like, “Why did FBI agents break the law, politicize our law enforcement agency, and get away with it?”

Mr. Jekielek:

All right. Let’s do the second question, from Valerie SP. This is a little more of a theoretical question, so get ready. “Former KGB agent Thomas D. Schumann, otherwise known as Yuri Bezmenov, in his book Love Letter to America, described four stages of subversion. Number one, demoralization, number two, destabilization, number three, crisis, number four, normalization. What’s going on in America?”

Mr. Patel:

Wow. We don’t have enough time to dive into that. But what I think the short answer is, unfortunately, it’s the politicization of our national security apparatus, of our defense postures, of our intelligence community, and of our law enforcement agencies. That’s the simple short answer. That’s why you have those questions being put forth. Because we now live in an America where people think we live in a third world republic. We have two-tier systems of justice in law enforcement, in the courts of law, in the whistleblower programs, and everywhere else. We have a hypocritical media who will lie endlessly to put out the disinformation campaign of those elected to Congress, and those hosting positions in Biden’s administration, so that they can have their egos glorified instead of doing the job. That is the ultimate politicization, and America unfortunately loses when that occurs.

Mr. Jekielek:

Do you think it’s the crisis stage, then? Is that the closest?

Mr. Patel:

I’m not the expert on all that stuff, you know me, I can barely read or write. But I think what we have successfully done, Jan, and I think this is a good place to leave it, is we have successfully gotten millions of people to cut the cord and stop watching CNN, and stop reading the New York Times, and any of that nonsense and start watching Epoch TV and reading the Epoch Times. Because they’re like, “I can’t go in every two and four years and rely on the person I’m sending to Washington to do the job for my community, for my state, for my country.” So, they’re more engaged. But the only way they can continue to be more engaged is to cut through the disinformation and get to the truth, which is hopefully what we’re putting out on blast.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, it’s time for our shout out. Let’s do it.

Mr. Patel:

Before I get to our shout out, I’m going to selfishly promote my new book series. For those that followed us and helped make “The Plot Against the King” a number one bestseller, thank you so much. It’s Russiagate for kids and adults. It’s got Hillary Queenton and Keeper Komey and a Shifty Knight, and the photos and pictures are pretty spectacular. So please go to and pick up a copy. It was so popular that you guys made me write another one, so we wrote “Plot Against the King 2000 Mules,” in collaboration with Dinesh D’Souza.

We touched the third rail of the education component that the liberals said we couldn’t touch. And we talk about election integrity in a fun way, because this is a constitutional republic and it matters to teach our children about what happened. We don’t say be Democrat or liberal, we say learn the values of this country, that is, truth, service, mission, and faith. We talk about that in “Plot Against the King 2000 Mules,” And yes, there are stories of glowing poo in here. So, please go to and help us get these books, as President Trump said, put in every classroom and every library and every homeschool office in America.

But tonight, Jan, you’re right. We have a very special shout out. Lee Benson. I know you’re out there somewhere. I don’t see you, but that’s okay. Lee has opened up his home to us in Phoenix, Arizona to do what we rarely do, which is a live stream of Kash’s Corner. We had a magnificent turnout from the audience. So Lee, tonight’s shout out goes to you. Thank you for opening up your home. Thank you everybody who tuned in live, and thank you everybody for your live chat questions. I know Jan is not going to go to sleep. He’s going to go home and read them all. But we really appreciate your support of Epoch Times and our shows here. Jan, we will see everybody next week on Kash’s Corner.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Truth Social:


Read More
Related Videos