search icon

Kash Patel on ‘Infiltration’ of the White House and Media Misconduct | Kash’s Corner

“When people say, oh, Kash, it’s not an infiltration. Well, that’s exactly what it is.”

In this episode of Kash’s Corner, Kash responds to claims that special counsel John Durham did not find “spying” or “infiltration” of the White House servers. We discuss the three tracks to tie Trump to Russia that Durham is investigating, how Durham’s findings have been misrepresented, and how this is part of a broader trend of media misreporting.


Kash Patel: Hey, everybody, and welcome to Kash’s Corner here at CPAC in Orlando, Florida.

Jan Jekielek: You’ve been getting a lot of flak recently.

Mr. Patel: You’re going to have to be more specific.

Mr. Jekielek: Yes. Well, I’ll read you a headline. Okay? “How the right embraced the false claim that Hillary Clinton, ‘spied’ on President Donald Trump,” and this actually, this Washington Post article, it stems from something that you said talking about these recent filings that Special Counsel Durham has been putting out exposing a lot of the work that he’s been doing, that’s frankly been new to a lot of us.

Mr. Patel: I agree. I think that article came out last week, if I’m not mistaken. Look, it’s no surprise to me that I continue to get excoriated by outfits like the Washington Post and other mainstream media outfits. It started back in 2016, ’17 when I ran the Russiagate investigation for then Chairman Nunes on House Intel. I think we’re going to get into sort of the M.O. of why the media does this; why the mainstream media does this.

They start these personal attacks. They start putting out false information and they cycle that through the government and the media themselves to counter the factual narrative that we’ve put out. We’ll talk about the three lines of effort that we’ve talked about previously on Kash’s Corner and how they intertwine with this Washington Post article. But to me, the fact that they’re trying to fact check me based on a federal pleading shows you the extent to which they’re willing to go to create a counter narrative. Just to have something else out there, because they don’t like what John Durham is pleading as a federal prosecutor in court.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, okay, and so very briefly for those as of yet uninitiated, broadly speaking, what has John Durham pleaded that has been surprising—new and informative?

Mr. Patel: Yes, so it was even news to me, and to the likes of Devin Nunes, and you guys who follow this so extensively and who worked on this so much. The main thing that was new was what I call line of effort three. John Durham revealed in his latest pleading that Michael Sussmann, the indicted head Hillary Clinton lawyer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign and for the DNC, retained a tech company to do a number of things. One of the things this tech company was supposed to do was mine for data to create, John Durham’s language, “A narrative, and an inference that Donald Trump somehow had a relationship with Russia, the Russian government or Putin,” to continue that narrative that they tried to start with the Steele dossier.

This is line of effort three. What John Durham alleges is that Sussmann created a relationship with the tech company. The tech company then went out and got, “A sensitive arrangement,” to access Trump Tower, one of Donald Trump’s residences, and the White House. Specifically the Executive Office of the President, and I’ll explain what that is later.

In my 16 years in government, as a former deputy director of National Intelligence, as a national security advisor in House Intelligence Committee, and as the former chief of staff to DOD, what that means when you get a sensitive arrangement, it means a contract was obtained by a private non-governmental party, in this case, the tech company, and a government agency in the intelligence community to access White House servers, computer farms and computer servers. That is the only way you can do it without hacking it. That’s why I said what I said before, that is literally a covert infiltration to the White House servers.

That’s why I think it’s such shocking news that we’re finding out about it, what? Four years later, maybe five years later, and the guys that ran the Russiagate investigation had no idea about it. That’s another reason why I, not John Durham, John Durham didn’t say infiltrate, but he said gained a sensitive arrangement. I’m telling you from my experience, there’s only one way to do that, to obtain a sensitive agreement, that’s with the intelligence community

Mr. Jekielek: But this tech company, Tech Executive-1 who ran the company, they’ve been actually working with the White House for some time, quite a bit before basically Trump even came on the scene.

Mr. Patel: Yes. John Durham put in his indictment, that’s where we get the date from—you and I aren’t making it up. He said the agreement between the DNC, and the lawyers, and the Hillary campaign, and the tech company was reached in July of 2016. It’s at the same time the Steele dossier thing was going on, and shortly thereafter.

It’s the same time the Alfa Bank server narrative was going on, that’s line of effort two. I think this line of effort three, they were run on parallel tracks. It’s not like we… They did Steele and the Steele dossier struck out. They did Alfa Bank, struck out and they went to line of effort three. We’ll call it the server line of effort. They did them at the same time, and started them about the same time in early January, in early 2016.

Mr. Jekielek: Tech Executive-1, okay? He’s actually had, and this has been reiterated in some of these articles that were responses to your commentary previously, right? Had a relationship with the White House. People have said, “No, he was actually, he would’ve been spying on the Obama White House.” This is what has been said, right?

Mr. Patel: No. That’s a great point, and that’s what people aren’t talking about. It’s partly in John Durham’s pleading and partly in publicly available information about Tech Executive-1. He had relationships and contracts with government agencies going back years and years and years, but it wasn’t to do the type of work, as far as I know. John Durham has alleged that he did in this line of effort three to infiltrate a White House server. He is, by his own admission, an individual who has been contracting with the intelligence community, the defense department and government agencies for years and years through multiple companies providing cyber related work. The extent of that work, we don’t know, but I think John Durham does know.

He has a background in this and funny enough, there’s a quote out there, Jan, from Tech Executive-1, who says he’s actually not, and I’m paraphrasing, an expert in cyber security matters. He just knows how to go about and get contracts and put people into play on those matters. I think that’s very telling, that’s from Tech Executive-1’s own mouth in his own interview from a few years ago.

Mr. Jekielek: Another thing that we discussed and we’ve been looking at these filings quite a bit, is that first of all, Tech Executive-1 is very well off, right?

Mr. Patel: Yeah. He’s not poor.

Mr. Jekielek: Yeah. At the same time he was offered a position in a future Hillary Clinton administration.

Mr. Patel: This individual, Tech Executive-1, was brought on by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign, specifically to execute line of effort three and utilize the servers at the White House, Trump Tower, and Trump’s office building to mine information that would show a narrative and inference that Trump was colluding or had a relationship with Russia. That’s in the pleading itself. That’s what John Durham has alleged, and I believe, if you’re alleging it as a former federal prosecutor, you already have the evidence to show that.

Then, he also said that Tech Executive-1 was not only offered a high level cybersecurity job in the Clinton incoming administration, which they all thought was a foregone conclusion, but that he, Tech Executive-1, said he would have no job in a Trump administration. Showing his bias, showing his political preference as to who should be president.

So as an individual, who’s contracting with the United States Government for millions of dollars over the course of his career, that’s not someone you want politicizing your intelligence community. You don’t want to give out those types of contracts. We actually guarded heavily against doing that, but we saw what happened with the Steele dossier, that the Hillary Clinton Campaign did the exact same thing by hiring a former MI6 spy to go in and try to get information, similar fashion, get paid, and then feed it in. We’ll talk about that later.

Mr. Jekielek: Now, in the pleading, I believe it talks about the Executive Office of the President, so I want you to quickly kind of explain what that is, because for some people it’s a unit, if you will, right? There’s actually physical space, you mention a number of physical spaces. Why are you so sure that these are the physical spaces that were…

Mr. Patel: Jan, as a former deputy assistant to the president and the head for counter terrorism, I worked in the White House under President Trump and what the Executive Office of the President stands for, what it means is there’s six component offices that form the EOP: it’s the Office of the President; it’s the Office of the Vice President; it’s the National Security Council; it’s the National Economic Council; it’s the Trade Representative Council’s office, and it’s also White House Council, the lawyers.

That’s the umbrella organization that covers all six of those components. Those components reside in the EEOB, which is the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Anyone who’s familiar with the White House knows the West Wing is not that big, so the only people who physically have office space in the West Wing itself are the president, the vice president, the national security advisor, the chief of staff to the President of the United States, and their immediate, immediate staff—one or two people each.

That’s it, everybody else is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. It’s a massive structure, which I think actually is prettier than the White House from an architectural standpoint. It’s four massive levels, five actually, which are one city block long and half a city block wide. That’s why when people say the Executive Office of the President, I wanted to make sure they knew what that meant. It wasn’t just a cable going into The Oval Office. That’s not what it meant, and John Durham, for sure, knows what that means. He would not just say the Executive Office of the President, if he didn’t already know and have proven that that infiltration, as I call it, was through the servers that go to those different components, at least two of them.

Mr. Jekielek: What about Trump Tower?

Mr. Patel: They’re saying there was another day, John Durham is saying that this same tech company obtained a separate route vector to get into Trump Tower servers like they got into the White House servers, and similarly, John Durham is saying Tech Executive-1 had another vector into one of Trump’s offices, I believe in… Well the west side of Manhattan, but it’s alleged in the pleading. There was a healthcare company too that they say was also accessed through this similar fashion.

Mr. Jekielek: A lot has been made of the use of the word infiltration, and this was something, this was a word that you used in a statement that you posted the day of this most recent Durham finding or pleading, pardon me. Kind of a whole big rigmarole around the use of this term, and it’s been actually apparently conflated, like your words were conflated with John Durham’s words in the pleading. Can you give us some resolution into this?

Mr. Patel: Yes, absolutely. I stand by what I said when I said, pursuant to John Durham’s pleading, that the White House servers, Trump Tower, and Trump’s office were infiltrated. We talked about a little bit before, based on my time in as deputy director of National Intelligence, chief of staff of the Department of Defense, former targeter at JSOC, and a former terrorism prosecutor. [I] spent a lot of time in the intelligence community, and then at the upper levels. I spent a lot of time organizing and orchestrating how government contracts are issued. Now, without getting into the details behind the curtain, I used that knowledge to come to an assessment based on John Durham’s use of the words, sensitive agreement, or sensitive arrangement.

The only way, in my opinion, that you get a sensitive arrangement with the United States Government to gain access to White House servers is if you contract with the intelligence community. That’s it. There isn’t another way. So when people say, “Oh, Kash, it’s not an infiltration.” Well, that’s exactly what it is, because it’s covertly done. Notice how John Durham didn’t expand upon it because most of that information is still probably classified, and I don’t have access to any of it, which is why I’m able to speak to it today from my experience at least. It’s not like they publicized it, and it’s not like they were doing any good.

We know through John Durham’s pleading, the purpose of that access infiltration was to mine Trump’s servers to create a “Narrative and inference,” per John Durham’s own pleading from the tech executives, “that Trump was somehow colluding or coordinated with Russia.” Those are the reasons why I think it’s an infiltration, circling back to the media component of it, right?

When this story broke, I did an interview with Fox News and Brooke Singman on print media, and I used the word infiltration and she quoted me in the headline, pursuant to my quote, which was entirely accurate. The mainstream media didn’t bother to, shocking, didn’t bother to read the article. They read the title, and they went after Fox News. They said, “Fox News falsely accuses John Durham of saying infiltrate. He never said it.” It’s right, he didn’t. Kash Patel said it in that interview, which I stand by.

Do you know what happened to that article? That article was then one of the most well-read articles of the week on the entire internet, that Brooke put out. At the end of the week, Michael Sussmann’s lawyers file that responsive pleading where they say, “What John Durham said is factually inaccurate,” which is their right to do. They can allege it, as John Durham did, basically effectively under oath to federal court. What Facebook did was remove that article from its entire website as false information and fake news. I don’t even know if there’s a word in the English language that covers the media’s conduct and now social media’s conduct.

It would’ve been one thing if social media came out and said, “This is what Kash and Fox said pursuant to the article, this is what the pleading said, and this is what John Durham said. You, the world, read it all and come out yourself to your own conclusion.” They just pulled it, and if you look for the… search on the internet, if you look for the article on the internet, you can now almost not find that Fox News article that Brooke Singman did.

Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. You’re so sure it went so crazy viral, was the most read piece? This is what you’re saying?

Mr. Patel: Because it was… We did it… If I recall the timeline correctly, John Durham issued his pleading on Friday evening, and this article was written on Saturday and put out Saturday. It was before any print publications, that I’m aware of, had put together a piece based on John Durham’s pleading. So I think the reason they asked me to do it, in part, was because I did the Russiagate investigation and my background in the intelligence community, so I spoke to the language in that pleading.

What the media doesn’t do, when they responded to it, or Facebook or Sussmann’s pleading, they don’t disagree with my calculation, my assessment, they just outright call it false and fake news, but don’t say why. Which I also find a little confounding, because if they explained it, maybe I would have an opportunity to say, “Well, that’s why I’m wrong,” but that just tells me it’s the same thing as when they attack people personally, when they’ve run out of facts to support their position.

They’re doing the same thing here. They’re just saying fake news, fake news, fake news, which is what they’ve been doing for years now, causing social media, as we’ve now seen, to have basically an implosion, and that’s led to the advent of Truth Social and me being on social media for the first time ever. It’s quite this six year, I don’t even know if it’s a circle, I would just call it a path, a journey for me, and you, and media in general.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, so given all of this, let’s go back to this headline, “The false claim that Hillary Clinton ‘spied’ on President Donald Trump.” What do you think about that?

Mr. Patel: I have a pretty simple response to that and it’s not mine. The Attorney General of the Department of Justice said under oath that Donald Trump’s presidency was spied on. The director of the FBI, Chris Wray, said under oath that Donald Trump’s campaign was spied on, and he went on to say under oath that the FBI intentionally committed a fraud on the FISA court, through that whole Steele dossier effort, which we’ve talked about.

Then, the inspector general of the Department of Justice agreed with the Attorney General, the director of the FBI, and said there were 17 instances of errors, any one of which should have reversed the surveillance warrant issued under line of effort one for the Steele dossier. I think those are three pretty powerful men who have testified under oath to Congress, so I’ll take their word under the point of perjury versus the word of the Washington Post any day.

Mr. Jekielek: Kash, this is one of the things we’ve been talking about and frankly, documenting. There’s kind of the… You could describe it as the same M.O., the same modus operandi that keeps being rinsed and repeated in different formats. Maybe you can outline that a little bit here.

Mr. Patel: I definitely can. I believe, when we’re talking about the three lines of effort, a real quick reminder. Line of effort one, the Steele dossier and the FISA court stuff; line of effort two, the Alfa Bank server, where the same tech company was retained by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign to go in and try to find a connection between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank, which is a Russian bank company, so they could say collusion, coordination, whatever. That’s line of effort two, and then line of effort three, is what we’ve been talking about through the Tech Executive and the access to the White House.

They’ve run the same M.O. They, the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the DNC, go out and hire Perkins Coie, the law firm that Sussmann and Marc Elias used to work at. Run tens of millions of dollars through that. Then the law firm goes out and hires other companies, Fusion GPS, tech executives, and the like, and they’re running these on parallel tracks to try to prove the false narrative that Donald Trump somehow colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.

Now, while they were doing that, the false information they knew they were obtaining, because these are also in John Durham’s pleadings; that the information that came back on Alfa Bank; the information that came back on Tech Executive-1, and obviously now, we know everything that came back on the Steele dossier, they knew to be false at the time they paid for it.

They took that information anyway and fed it to the FBI, other government agencies, the intelligence communities, sort of on another offshoot of their line of efforts to say, “We’ve got this information, what are we going to do with it?” They’re going to take it to the federal government to say, “Okay, you, the United States Government, you need to launch an investigation of Donald Trump,” which is exactly what happened.

While they were doing that, another offshoot from these three lines of effort was I believe if I was the DNC and the Hillary Clinton Campaign, trying to prove this privately would be of little use to them, so they had to prove it publicly. How do they do that? They leaked this very information, the Steele dossier efforts, the Alfa Bank efforts, and the like to the media. The media then reported this on anonymous sources as if it were true and accurate information obtained by other sources unrelated to the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign.

For example, what did the FBI do in the FISA court with Steele and going up on Carter Page? They said, “Oh, look, we have corroboration from outlet X and outlet Y, because we were told this by our sources and now the media’s reporting it on other sources.” Well, as you and I now well know, because we proved it, it was the same sources, coming from the same money, all dating back to the Hillary Clinton Campaign’s effort to try to tie Donald Trump to Russia.

Which, if you look back at it in like a five, six year expanse, it’s… Wild isn’t even the right word. It’s literally the definition of insane, trying to do the same thing over and over again, and reach a different result. They failed on all fronts

Mr. Jekielek: Seemed to be very determined to try to find something, and it’s kind of amazing, in a way, that they didn’t really find anything.

Mr. Patel: I think that’s the biggest point. When you bring up articles like the one you cited earlier and all the other hit pieces, for lack of a better term, on me, Devin and Johnny Ratcliffe, and everybody along the way, that’s the next step in it. Right? First, they put out this master plan to take down a candidate and eventually a president for the United States with false information that they knew to be false, paying tens of millions of dollars along the way to do that.

Then they helped put it in the media. Then, when none of that worked, because we proved the facts, we put out things like the Nunes memo, we put out the Hipsie report, the IG report, the FBI’s investigation, and now we have John Durham’s Special Counsel investigation coming out, proving everything we’re saying, factually. What does this same media do? They come out and start personally attacking the people that investigated it in the first place, and proved it in the first place.

That’s exactly what I think this Washington Post is doing to me yet again. They did it four or five months ago when one of their guys tried to do a six month long hit piece on me. It’s fine, we can take it, but what happens is, you corrupt the media. I think that’s a direct result of these five year campaigns of putting out false information after false information, and half of America still believes, because they don’t keep up with it like you and I do. They still believe that was true. That happened, and it didn’t. You have to keep following it to know the story.

Mr. Jekielek: We’re filming on the day, basically Russia has invaded Ukraine, and as this has happened I keep seeing this narrative coming up. This is mostly on Twitter that I’m watching, but I keep seeing that narrative as if it were true coming up again and again, and again, and everyone’s saying, “Aha, look. Now we have evidence of something.” It’s incredible.

Mr. Patel: The media, not all of it, but a lot of it has gotten so accustomed to doing this sort of M.O. that they’ll just put out a couple of things and people will be like, “Wow, look at this catchy headline, “Kash Patel under investigation,” but that’s not really what it says or means, but people take that and run with it, and tweet it, and make other headlines with it. Then, it’s out there and you can’t defeat it, but my biggest problem is when that information becomes defamatory, and you know what that’s like and I know what that’s like, personally. It’s not to be called a bad name or something of an opinion. It’s to literally have a story made about you and then your family has to read it.

That’s what this entire process that the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign have done. I believe [it] has bankrupted most of the media, and journalists have lost credibility. What surprises me even more is they don’t care—they, the journalists. Most of them just don’t care, and they continue the defamatory work, which is why I started this foundation, Fight with Kash, because I found out I wasn’t the only one defamed— everyday Americans were defamed. Not just called nasty things, but had flat out lies told about them, and the only way you can clear your name, as you know, is to go to court, but that costs money. We’re using our notoriety to go out there and raise money, tell people, clear their names by filing defamation suits.

Mr. Jekielek: No, and actually, this is a good opportunity just to mention like what Fight with Kash does, which is basically anybody who has faced this sort of situation can actually come with their case, and your lawyers are going to look at it and try to figure out whether they can do something with it, right?

Mr. Patel: Yes. Way smarter lawyers than me. We have a team and  basically the entire foundation is a charitable organization. No one makes any money off of this. All the work goes to running the foundation and filing lawsuits. We’ve got teams of lawyers on standby. We have multiple pleadings already in the works to file lawsuits, hopefully, which we can go public with shortly.

Following the lawsuits I filed personally, against CNN, New York Times and Politico for defamation. I want others to follow, because I know they’ve been defamed. We get emails every day at telling us about their stories and telling us, “Thank you for at least being a voice.” Then we tell them, “We’re more than a voice. Do you have a case, send us a summary, we’ll plead your case legally and assign you a lawyer and you’ll have your day in court.”

Mr. Jekielek: Well, Kash. I think we’ve hit the time to do our shout out.

Mr. Patel: Yeah. This week’s shout out, Jan, goes to Lisa Brazil. Thanks so much for posting your comments and thanks to everyone who posted so many comments from our last episode. We really enjoyed it and a special shout out to everyone who’s here with us at CPAC watching this episode. We appreciate your support and we’ll see you next week on Kash’s Corner.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Follow EpochTV on social media:



Read More
Related Videos