search icon
Live chat

Kash Patel: Liz Cheney Has Effectively Exonerated Trump for Charges of Insurrection

Whistleblowers have recently come forward alleging widespread misconduct within the FBI and DOJ and a cover-up of the Hunter Biden laptop story, according to a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley demanding answers and accountability.

“Here you have an actual journalistic investigation, which proves the merits of the Hunter Biden laptop and its contents. And then what do you have? Individuals who swore an oath to protect America politicize the national security apparatus because they don’t want Donald Trump elected,” says Kash Patel.

And as the Jan. 6 committee continues to withhold critical information from the public about what happened on Jan. 6, Liz Cheney effectively exonerated Trump of the “insurrection” charge in a recent interview on Fox News, says Kash Patel.

Leaked text messages from Cassidy Hutchinson, the Jan. 6 committee’s star witness, have undermined her testimony, putting even more holes in the entire Jan. 6 narrative.

* 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.

Jan Jekielek:

There’s been some really crazy headlines that I’ve seen about a certain conversation that Congresswoman Liz Cheney had with Brett Baier. And they don’t seem to be on the mark. I think we need to talk about this.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. I think crazy is putting it mildly. They’re more, I would style them as disinformation tactics by the Jan 6th Commission and Cheney, and I fault those in the media for not correcting her or challenging her with the facts. But we can dive into that.

Mr. Jekielek:

Yes. And before we do that, let’s talk about this recent letter that Senator Grassley has sent basically to the FBI, to the DOJ, saying that he has whistleblowers that have evidence that there were some coverups around the realities of the Hunter Biden laptop. Which frankly, at this point, everybody knows that there have to have been some kind of coverups.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. Look, I’ve said from the beginning that I think Hunter Biden’s going to be indicted. It’s just a matter of timing based on all the prodding and investigatory work that has gone on by journalists who took the time to be real journalists and exposed the Hunter Biden laptop for the actual evidence of crime that it is. 

For my time on the Hill with Chairman Nunes, I got to know Senator Grassley and I worked with his team.  One of the things Senator Grassley has always championed is the protection of whistleblowers. There’s a whistleblower protection act, which literally codifies into law safeguarding those who are in government positions that want to expose waste, corruption and fraud. It’s one of the main purposes of Congress and Senator Grassley has been a big proponent of it. 

So when he focuses in on something, i.e., the Hunter Biden laptop investigation in the FBI and whistleblowers have started to come forward, that means he’s been working it for a while and he is now just sending letters to Chris Wray and the FBI demanding answers. and that means those guys are going to have some problems if those answers aren’t to Senator Grassley’s satisfaction and if the document production isn’t to his satisfaction. There is a lot we could talk about in there, but I’ll leave it to you where we go. 

Mr. Jekielek:

I just want to remind everybody that five former CIA heads of CIA signed a letter back in the day saying that the Hunter Biden laptop story that “The New York Post” led with has all the hallmarks, I don’t know if that’s a direct quote but it’s close, of Russian disinformation. And of course the media picked this up. The legacy media just said, oh, it’s all Russian disinformation. Candidate Biden at the time himself picked it up.

Mr. Patel:

Well, not just them. Remember it wasn’t just two former CIA directors. It wasn’t just a former director of the National Security Agency. It wasn’t just a former high level DOD intelligence official. It was 46 other former high level intelligence and national security officials signed off on the letter calling it disinformation. And then what happened to “The New York Post?” America’s oldest paper reported on Hunter Biden? Their accounts on social media were shut down and it happened just before a presidential election. 

It sort of analogizes to the moment where Hillary Clinton propagated the Russiagate hoax right before the presidential election in 2016 when we discovered evidence. We are talking about the Alpha Bank stuff which we covered quite extensively on our show here. 

That’s the same move here. Hilary Clinton and company knew the information was false, but they knew the mainstream media would carry it anyway. Here you have an actual journalistic investigation which proves the merits of the Hunter Biden laptop and its contents. And what do you have, individuals sworn to oath to protect  America politicizes the national security apparatus because they don’t want Donald Trump elected. 

They knew that they hadn’t done the research. It is not like they had access to Hunter Biden’s laptop. It;s basically like a doctor, a psychologist viewing someone on TV and making a medical assessment of them without ever actually needing them in person. It is one of the inviolable things you can do as a doctor. I think it’s the same thing here. 

These intelligence officials played no role in examining the contents. All they played a role was in writing a letter, making it look good so that they could have their fake news headline. And it worked. They got it, right?

They got “The New York Post” shutdown. They suffocated the Hunter Biden laptop story. Fast forward, what not even two years here? And now we have the Hunter Biden laptop has been proven to be not only not disinformation, but it has merited discussions of criminal prosecution for Hunter because of the contents of it. And I haven’t seen a single one of those officials who signed the letter you’re talking about retract it— address it again. Actually some of them have doubled down and they said they were glad that they signed the letter irrespective of the facts.

Mr. Jekielek:

Or even say, I’m sorry.

Mr. Patel:

Well, I could care less about their sorry, if I’m being honest. I would care about their credibility. But the media doesn’t care. They don’t care. They’re just looking to advance the political narrative. Remember they posited this in the mainstream media a year and a half ago. So it’s not like the rest of the country’s following this anymore. We have to re-tredge this entire narrative to fix it, just like we have to do for Russiagate, just like we have to do for the Ukraine impeachment fiasco, just like we’re doing for Jan 6th. 

This is the Democrat, the radical left Democratic playbook. When you don’t have the facts, you put out a politicization of the facts for the national security apparatus. When those facts are challenged with the truth and defeated, you get the mainstream media to carry your water. And when the mainstream media is finally ultimately defeated like we did in Russiagate and so many other instances, then you create the next fiasco.

And so now we’re on the whole ‘Where’s Hunter’ scenario? I said it before, I’ll say it again, I do believe he’s going to be indicted for crimes related to tax fraud and FAR registration and things like that. And as I’ve always said, I was asked this the other day, what’s the best way to prosecute that crime? Follow the money. We did so in Russiagate. I did so as a terrorism prosecutor and I did so as a public defender. And the one thing about bank records and money and numbers is that they never lie. So it’s an easy way to make a case— they just have to want to do it.

Mr. Jekielek:

One of our sort of crack Spygate investigators, Hans Mahncke, made an observation I think a number of the folks who’ve been really, really dipping deep into the innards of this noted this, and probably you as well.  FBI agent, Brian Auten, I hope I’m pronouncing his name correctly. But Auten, when I was talking with Hans, he described him like the evil “Forest Gump” or something. He seems to appear in all these different scenarios, right? For example, he’s the one who vetted the Carter Page warrant. He drafted the phony ICA, right? He concealed the, Danchenko disavowed Steele was involved in framing General Flynn. All these different places where this fellow shows up. And now, of course, in this Grassley letter, he shows up being the person that’s saying that this credible information is disinformation.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. And I think the show will put up the Chuck Grassley letter or at least a link to it so people can read that whistleblower letter that Senator Grassley wrote to the FBI and DOJ. But it is important that he has highlighted this guy like Auten the special agent. And I think you just touched upon it. Let me elaborate a little more why I think I am so offended by this FBI agent’s actions.    

He not only participated in the Russiagate conspiracy, he falsely validated the FISA warrant in its presentation to the court to unlawfully surveil, then a presidential candidate and later president of the United States. That was Auten. He next participated in the false prosecution of Michael Flynn, which withheld exculpatory evidence, evidence of general Flynn’s innocence on purpose. And that case ultimately had to be dismissed. He then would later go on to the Hunter Biden laptop investigation and he, Auten, would be the agent that defined Hunter Biden’s laptop falsely as Russian disinformation.

This same agent is involved in the three biggest investigations in the FBI in modern history. And Senator Grassley is rightly so dialed in on him to be like okay, maybe you made a mistake once, intentionally, maybe you made a mistake twice intentionally, but you definitely didn’t make a mistake intentionally three serious times that changed the course of a presidential election in a political narrative for our media to cover. 

Senator Grassley wants answers. And I think whistleblowers at the FBI have come forth, and rightly so, have said we bore witness to this. We saw him hide this evidence. We saw him doctor this information. We saw him withhold exculpatory evidence of innocence. Senator Grassley wants answers and I think Chris Wray needs to go up and testify before Congress because this guy has been working with him for so long. I remember we highlighted so many individuals who were part of this corrupt behavior for Chris Wray when we were running the Russiagate Investigation and they’re still by the FBI and not just that but operating on its most high level investigations today. 

Mr. Jekielek:

And what about the fact that he actually concealed that Danchenko disavowed Steele?

Mr. Patel:

Yes, not only did Auten, the special agent, lead the three investigations we just highlighted that were fraught with unlawful activity, but there’s Danchenko. John Durham’s special counsel prosecution of Igor Danchenko, who was Christopher Steele’s source, who told the FBI that he’d made up information that he gave to Steele. He made up the sources. He made up who he was talking to and he made up its veracity. And he told this agent, Auten, that the information was made up. 

Now Danchenko has been charged in a five count indictment, which is going to trial in October of this year, where special counsel John Durham is prosecuting him for lying to the FBI. It would be astonishing if this individual wasn’t called to the witness stand, he’ll probably take the fifth, but I would subpoena him and maybe he’s one of the 30 subpoenas that John Durham has issued in the Danchenko case. 

But this guy, this agent is basically akin to Michael Weisman’s track record of the Department of Justice in false prosecutions over the years, i.e., Enron and the flow of prosecutions thereafter. So, he was never held accountable basically. Weisman basically went in and out of government, got promotions and became Special Counsel Mueller’s second hand guy.

This individual, this is another example why Americans are so frustrated with the lack of accountability. He intentionally skewed and probably broke the law on multiple investigations at the highest level and keeps getting a promotion. Him and the other FBI agent, who’s now the special agent in charge in DC, Thibault, same thing, same track record. It’s not as if these two weren’t working in tandem together. What needs to be answered is why did they fail to do their jobs? Why did they break their oath of office? And why did they break the law? And Chris Wray, why do they still have jobs investigating Americans for criminal activities when they themselves are the criminals?

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, this is a huge question for me actually, because we did have a lot of investigation. There was this whole IG report that actually did find all sorts of problems, for example, with how the FISAs were obtained and well, many, many, many places, right? And somehow these folks like Auten are still, not only gainfully employed, but employed at the highest levels, touching the highest, the most important investigations arguably that the FBI has. How does that happen?

Mr. Patel:

Unfortunately, I used to have this saying in my 16 years in government; if you want a promotion screw up, and if you want a bigger promotion screw up intentionally big time. And what this guy has done, unfortunately, typifies that. He went from a low level agent to one of the highest operatives in the FBI over the course of multiple FBI directors, even though his activities were highlighted to them for them by the FBI’s own documentation that we proved during Russiagate, that Senator Grassley’s now exposing through his whistleblower program. 

It’s just shocking and also tragic to see the Department of Justice that he used to work for, continue to be politicized in this fashion because he’s being rewarded as Peter Strzok was rewarded, as Lisa Page was rewarded, as James Baker was rewarded, as so many others [and] as Bruce Orr was rewarded for, engineering almost, fictitious prosecutions and investigations for political purposes. Which is never supposed to happen in the United States of America. But unfortunately now they’re happening at a rate, at a clip that is unheard of.

Mr. Jekielek:

Actually now come to think of it, why don’t we talk a little bit more about Senator Grassley’s whistleblower program. I don’t know if perhaps a lot of people aren’t aware and perhaps other people want to come out and speak with him.  

Mr. Patel:

Well generally the way it works is the Whistleblower Protections Act statute provides for whistleblowers and their attorneys, should they retain one, to come in to certain committees in the Capitol, be it the House Intelligence Committee or the Senate Judiciary Committee or what have you, whoever has jurisdiction over the certain agencies and departments. They can come in, and I should not say, Senator Grassley’s program, it’s just one that he has championed. What he encourages is the exposure of waste, of fraud and abuse— especially violations that break the law. 

So he has gained that reputation over the years which I think allows him credibility when people want to come forward because it’s very difficult to do. I used to lead up receiving a lot of whistleblowers when I was with the House Intelligence Committee because we would have them come in under the same Whistleblower Protections Act. And they’s have to be treated a certain way and information will have to be verified and certain of that  information was classified so you have to handle it sensitively and appropriately. 

So it gets pretty complicated and it’s also tough to keep that person anonymous. That these people still work in government. The whole purpose of the Whistleblower Protection Act is so there’s no retribution taken against them and that their anonymity is maintained. So that’s critical to me. Hopefully that stays in these instances that Senator Grassley is talking about.  But I’m very, very  excited to see the result in the response to his letter and I’m sure we’ll be covering it.             

Mr. Jekielek:

The reason I just mentioned this as you alluded to here, it can be very difficult when people are faced with the kind of information we just presented to actually come as whistleblowers like, who can I trust, right? But essentially we can see that this office is one that will safeguard them as best as possible. 

Mr. Patel:

Yes, I think so. He’s established that track record.

Mr. Jekielek:

So let’s jump to January 6th. I’m going to read you a few headlines. Okay. Rolling Stones – “A Sunday Miracle: Fox News Audience Exposed to January 6th Truth During Liz Cheney Interview.” What’s your reaction?

Mr. Patel:

Oh, I have so many reactions to the fake news media and now it’s expansion. It shocks me that journalists and media personalities that I used to rely on in the past have lost their journalistic integrity or their ability to ask questions and do their investigations before having people come on their programs with a massive audience to perpetuate a false political narrative. That headline is just one example of Liz Cheney’s actions this past weekend that have allowed so many in America to falsely believe the authorities that a president does and does not have in relation to the United States military.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, so let’s start at first principles. Okay. Because you’ve actually, we have you on record in an article in The Epoch Times essentially saying what Liz Cheney said was true. Right. But it’s not quite as simple as that.

Mr. Patel:

Well, you’re right. Going back to my public defender days, if you could ever take the government’s own evidence and use it to exonerate your client, then you’re walking your client right out the door of the courthouse. And what Liz Cheney has done is literally exonerated President Trump of the very charge her committee is leading against President Trump—insurrection. 

She has come out and said that the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, has stated that President Trump never gave an order, and that’s important, that’s the exact word that was used, an order to deploy the United States military in DC on January 6th. That’s true. We didn’t do that. Because had we done that and had President Trump actually gave us an order, which he never did, that’s the very definition of a coup and committing an insurrection.

The law is supremely clear, in posse comitatus, a federal statute that has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it only has one interpretation. It’s very simple. The President of the United States cannot use the Department of Defense uniformed officers and deploy them domestically for law enforcement purposes. At all. Period. So what Liz Cheney [is] doing is a slight of hand. 

I remind our audience, Liz Cheney is on the Armed Services committee. She oversees the Department of Defense. Her father owns Halliburton, the largest defense contractor on planet earth, who has made billions of dollars. There is no way Congresswoman Cheney doesn’t know the law. What she does know is how to be partisan and politicize national security as evidenced by her participation in the Jan 6th Committee and conducting interviews like this whereas they tout a headline. Most Americans don’t know this, nor should they, they shouldn’t know the inner workings of the Department of Defense or the law as it relates to the deployment of soldiers within American boundaries. She knows that.

She’s capitalizing on people’s lack of knowledge, and then going to the media and asking them to put out these fake news headlines and now she’s basically trying to have it both ways. She’s saying, because we’ve covered this extensively on her show before about President Trump flat out authorized the use of the United States National Guard. That’s the only thing he can do under the law. He can authorize it. We’ve shown that authorization happened before January 6th, days before January 6th. We’ve shown that we at the Department of Defense and me as the Chief of Staff took those offers of authorization to the Capitol Police, to mayor Bowser, who runs DC. They rejected it. Why is that important? Just to remind our audience, the National Guard can only be used domestically if two things happen. There’s a presidential authorization and there’s a request by the local governing authority for that assistance. That’s it.

So we’ve testified to that under oath. Chris Miller testified to that under oath. The documentation has been shown on our program and many others that support that narrative. And Biden’s DOD Inspector General interviewed Chairman Mark Milley, who corroborated everything I just said, that the president authorized the troops and that authorization was declined by Bowser and Pelosi and the Capitol Police. That’s on page 31 of Biden’s DOD Inspector General report. 

Why go through all that? Because the facts, and this is what I was talking about earlier when talking about Hunter Biden, have defeated the fictitious narrative that the January 6th Committee has been putting forth, that President Trump did not authorize the security posture on January 6th. He did. And he followed the law. So what do they do? They make up the next iteration of the false cycle. They go on TV and they say, and they prey on the lack of knowledge of certain Americans to say, President Trump never gave an order.

I ask everybody that’s watching this show, go back in American history and look for a president that has ordered the deployment of the United States military domestically. Tell me if you find one. And Liz Cheney knows that. But what’s even more tragic is that you have these news programs, who are supposed to be unbiased in doing their homework, allowing her to roll out this next false narrative and allowing these headlines to perpetuate, and no one’s correcting them. No one’s challenging them. 

It’s almost as if they don’t care because it’s Russiagate all over again. The target is President Trump. And everyone knows the purpose of the January 6th Committee is not to get to the truth, it’s to get to a point where you can either impeach president Trump so he can’t run again. Or what they’re now working on, what Mayor Gar, excuse me, what Attorney General Garland announced this past weekend is a possible prosecution of Trump for the events of January 6th.

But, I was asked by a friend, if President Trump got charged and I was his defense attorney, how would you handle this case? And I said, easy. One witness, Liz Cheney. Put her up there and hit play for that interview you just cited where Liz Cheney says President Trump never ordered the deployment of the National Guard domestically. Case closed. He’s innocent. So I doubt most media will cover it, but that’s the reality of the situation. I’ve even gone out and challenged the media and said I’ll come out on your shows and talked to you about it in person, because I was there firsthand, and not one of them have gotten back to me. 

Mr. Jekielek:

So to build on this a little bit, there’s been audio circulating put out by the January 6th Committee, basically of former Secretary Miller’s testimony about Trump’s authorization or ordering. It’s actually a  little bit ambiguous in that audio what it is he’s exactly saying. So, what do you think of this audio? This has been used essentially as evidence to support these headlines that have been out.

Mr. Patel:

What it has been used for is a disinformation campaign. There is a difference as we’ve talked about extensively between the President’s ability to authorize the United States military and the National Guard to operate domestically and the unlawful action to order the deployment of the United States military. And I put out a statement which hopefully we can put out which succinctly summarizes and answers the issue you’ve raised. But to break it down a  little bit for the audience, Secretary Miller was correct when he said President Trump did not order the deployment of the United States military on January 6th, because to do so would have been unconstitutional. Secretary Miller knows that.

And what they’ve done is the January 6th Committee has again taken snippets because they’ve said this from the beginning, they’re not going to give you all of the information from their investigation. They’re not going to give you all of the recording. They’re not going to give you the transcript from me and Secretary Miller that we’ve demanded be released every day since we took our sworn depositions before the January 6th Committee. 

They’re going to give you what they want to hear. They’re going to give you what they want you to hear. And this is just another example and people are, unfortunately, gaslighting, a great American in Chris Miller, who served 26 years as an Army Special Forces officer and then a high ranking official and ultimately Secretary of Defense in the United States government. And he is now under attack for doing the lawful thing as a Secretary of Defense. President Trump is now under attack for following the law in mobilizing and authorizing the National Guard.

And what Liz Cheney and the January 6th Committee have done is say, well, now it’s tantamount to a crime for his “failure to act.” And I just remind our audience, this January 6th committee who is now criticizing President Trump and us for not breaking the law and ordering a deployment of the United States military in DC, as if it were downtown Kandahar. These people are the same ones that excoriated President Trump when he walked across Lafayette Square in the summer when so many towns were burning down with one uniformed military officer who had a single side arm. They went apoplectic when he did that. 

Now these hypocrites have come around to say he’s to blame for not breaking the law and deploying, forcefully deploying the National Guard. That is the definition of a coup. That is the definition of an insurrection. And they are misusing Chris’s words to fit a political narrative in politicizing the national security of this country. And I think it’ll come out in the end.  That’s why we spent so much time on it in these shows. But shame on every reporter, who took that one hook, line and sinker just so many of the other ones that we have disproven over time. And I think we’re getting to another one in our next bit right now. 

Mr. Jekielek:

As we finish up, I was looking at some of Molly Hemingway’s new reporting over at “The Federalist.” And she seems to have gotten a hold of a whole bunch of past text messages of Cassidy Hutchinson. And they just really don’t square at all with what she seems to have testified. I’m going to read one here that Molly found. So she says, “I would rather shoot myself dead into the Potomac than see Marine One flying around this city without 45 again.” Of course, referring to President Trump. And this was three months after the capital riot.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, it’s so. Cassidy Hutchinson is someone that I worked with at the White house. She was in the Chief of Staff’s office as a junior staffer. She would walk around talking about how much she loved President Trump and the work he was doing. And if you don’t believe me, you have her own words in a text message to Molly Hemingway. And if you don’t believe that text message, there’s a slew of text messages in Molly’s article that shows her complete and utter bias and likely dishonesty before the January 6th Committee. 

Remember this person was shown to be the star, the new American citizen that was going to save America from Donald Trump by testifying before the January 6th Committee. And here’s my problem. Not that she testified, that’s her right and if she wanted to, she should. She was cooperating with the committee. The committee had her cell phone, the committee had these text messages. They had her emails. And again, they chose to withhold this information from the American people. They’re conducting a selective piecemeal investigation to fulfill a political narrative. This case shows it better than any I’ve seen in recent history.

Why didn’t Benny Thompson and Liz Cheney put these text messages out. They didn’t have to read them. They could have just put them out so the journalists in America could see them. The questions need to be asked, where are the rest? And what was their reason for withholding them? Which shows Cassidy Hutchinson’s true beliefs. 

Then what caused Cassidy Hutchinson to completely change her opinion in a matter of weeks? Was she offered a book contract? Did she get a media deal? Who paid for her lawyers? These are valid questions when you put yourself before a committee in America, in the United States Congress in one of the most consequential supposed investigations in modern history. That’s what you have to be, examined through that lens. And this committee has failed to do it.

And that’s why I’m glad we brought this up because it dovetails with the rest of our show where we have shown over and over and over again what happens when you politicize and selectively decide to prosecute and investigate versus what you do, i.e. Senator Grassley and his whistleblower program when you fully investigate a matter. And then when it’s ready to be disclosed in its entirety, you disclose it. The American media, the legacy media, has moved past Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony and no one’s covering this or any of her biases or statements that in any court of law would’ve destroyed her credibility, and effectively called her a liar.

So I think that’s why honestly, Jan, most people have tuned out of the January 6th hearings. This last grasp by Congresswoman Cheney to go on a media channel that is not CNN and try to launch another false missive is emblematic of this committee’s style of investigation and promulgation. Cassie Hutchinson is just another one. And I think America’s like you have lied to us over and over and over again. Why should we believe you? 

I want to talk about the economy and surging inflation, the border and the drug crisis. And Iran and Russia and China, and how we are getting steamrolled on the global stage. So we’ll continue to talk about all of those things, but we want to maintain focus on some of these January 6th findings because they’re not that. They’re not the truth. It’s a selective report. And the January 6th Committee has said they’re going to work through the summer. They’re going to work into September and October, and keep in mind, it’s a midterm election cycle.

And they know, I think, the reality that the Democrats are going to lose the gavels and that’s all the time they have. So they’re rushing to this judgment and they’re trying to tether it to a Merrick Garland prosecution of Donald Trump. And as I’ve said before, there’s no coincidences in government. This committee is talking to the Department of Justice. 

It’s no coincidence that the Department of Justice made this announcement right on the tail or the heels of the disinformation campaign that Liz Cheney continues to lead. That’s not a coincidence. It’s an orchestration when you want to politicize our law enforcement agencies and our national security apparatus. And tragically we have to continue continuing to cover this type of information instead of talking about the ways we could better our national security apparatus, counteract the drug opioid epidemic and help Americans buy cheap gas. So we’ll keep on it, but I’d rather be talking about some other stuff.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, and I have to say this because of course in The Epoch Times’ January 6th documentary, which I want to mention that I hope everyone has seen and if you haven’t, you should see. There’s some really, really disturbing information that we’ve unearthed. There’s clear bad actions by the Capitol Police that really need deep investigation [and] haven’t been investigated.

Mr. Patel:

One of the actual individuals who is charged with the felonious assault of officer Sicknick of the Capitol Police, those charges were dismissed this week. That just happened. Nobody’s covering it. Thanks to Julie Kelly’s great reporting and that of Epoch Times people are reading about it. But it’s things like that.

Mr. Jekielek:

No, no, exactly. And the thing is I, for one, and this is something that seems to kind of be dragging on, it’s something that people are tuning up from, but what actually happened we do need to find out, I think. What actually happened. So I, for one, really hope that we can have an honest look at the situation and to actually have justice served.

Mr. Patel:

Yes I think it’s going to take many, many more months unfortunately. It’s going to take a change in leadership of Congress. It’s going to take a change in the focus of the direction of the investigations and the direction of what the American people want to know versus what they’re being force fed. And when those two meet, I think we’ll get some answers, but that’s going to be months, months, months away.

Mr. Jekielek:

So, Kash, I think it’s time for a shout out.

Mr. Patel:

That’s right, Yon. And we wanted to take a second and thank everyone for returning to season five of Kash’s Corner. We enjoyed the live chat last week. We had some record viewership. We thank you for tuning in. And this week’s shout out goes to Gail Donagee. Thanks so much for your lovely comments on our comment board and to everybody else. And we will see you all next week on Kash’s Corner.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVus
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTV
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@EpochTV

Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtv
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVus
Gab: https://gab.com/EpochTV
Telegram: https://t.me/EpochTV


The Real Story of Jan. 6 Documentary102 Minutes, Color
“The Real Story of Jan. 6,” a documentary by The Epoch Times, reveals the truth that has been hidden from the American people. While a narrative has been set that what took place that day was an insurrection, key events and witnesses have been ignored, until now.

WATCH NOWTheRealStoryOfJan6.com
BUY DVD:  https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6

Read More
Popular
Related Videos