Kash’s Corner: How Clinton-Connected Tech Exec Spied on White House to Mine Trump Info
Special counsel John Durham’s recent filing has revealed that a tech executive working with former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann had exploited his access to White House internet traffic.
Furthermore, the filing describes how the tech executive, in “seeking to please” the Clinton campaign and Sussmann’s law firm, sought “to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia.” Essentially, they sought to establish a link—even if it did not exist, says Kash Patel.
Kash Patel and Jan Jekielek break down revelations from the new filing, and who may be the next target in Durham’s investigation.
You can find the declassified transcripts here of the depositions of people of interest in the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into allegations of Trump-Russia collusion.
Kash Patel: Hey, everybody. And welcome back to Kash’s Corner.
Jan Jekielek: Hey, Kash. You know, I’m super jealous here because you are in Hawaii, which is why we are doing this remotely. I’m here in the very, very continental USA. And you picked a very interesting week to head over to Hawaii because Durham seems to have dropped the pleading of pleadings here and that everyone’s talking, well not everybody’s talking about. Actually, there’s some people very conspicuously not talking about it at all, but a lot of people are talking about it. And so why don’t we start here? You’re very familiar with some of the realities in this pleading. Give me a breakdown.
Mr. Patel: I think what should happen is I should take more vacations because then maybe John Durham will drop more explosive information. But look, so John Durham filed another pleading, and then the defense actually, Sussmann’s lawyers filed a response. And we’ll get to that. But basically, John Durham filed another conflicts pleading saying that he, John Durham as a federal prosecutor, has discovered that the indicted Michael Sussmann as represented by Latham & Watkins, a law firm that also represents other people in John Durham’s investigation or other witnesses that John Durham’s going to call in the trial of Michael Sussmann.
And as you and I previously talked about when he filed a similar pleading against Danchenko, the other guy that’s indicted by John Durham, the source of Christopher Steele, he had a similar issue with him. And under, as we talked about then, under the rule of law in court and under the ethical obligations of a prosecutor, it’s incumbent on the prosecutor to disclose, and as we said, possible conflicts of interest.
Not something that will for sure happen, but if you see a possibility of a conflict of interest, you have an obligation to inform the court, the judge to say please look at this and then follow the guidelines in the law and tell the defense that these possible conflicts can occur. And the defense has an option. They can sit and continue on with the counsel, the defense counsel they’ve retained. But there has to be, what we call, a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver in court with the defendant through his attorneys.
The consequences of failing to do that basically gives the defense a free shot, a free bite at the apple. Because if John Durham did not file this pleading and the defendant, Sussmann in this case, was indicted, then he could come back and say, hey, judge, there was a conflict here that I was not made aware of. And under the law, under the appellate law in the land, that’s basically an automatic reversal. And then John Durham would have to try the case all over again.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, what’s really interesting here also is that basically Sussmann’s team has basically asked Durham to provide them with all sorts of information, right? And a few episodes ago, you actually did a little bit of commentary on this, saying I think this might be a strategic blunder on their side. And it’s very interesting how this is playing out. So kind of remind us. Actually, you know what? Let’s role that clip very briefly.
Mr. Patel: What the defense counsel did was, and I think on this one, I think they overreached, they issued offensive pleadings themselves, the defense counsel that is, to say we’re not getting everything in discovery from you John Durham in special counsel land. We want X, we want Y, we want Z.
So normally what happens is there’s an exchange between defense attorneys and prosecutors and they come to some sort of agreement. If they can’t, they go to the court to have the court decide. What John Durham smartly did was, again, he issued a 20-page pleading where he laid out his entire criminal case against Sussmann. And he also put the world on notice that Michael Sussmann is still under criminal investigation outside of this indictment, which I thought was the most intriguing piece of this—one of the most intriguing pieces of this pleading.
So he’s telling the world, he’s like, well, just because you’re charged with one count of lying doesn’t mean I, John Durham am done investigating you. You, the defense have now asked for X, Y, Z, and all these other things. Well, he, John Durham told the court I can’t meet the deadline set by the court because the defense keeps asking me for this stuff, more and more information, more and more information. So he, John Durham has to go back out and look for it. And rightly so.
So what I think is going to happen is there’s going to be an extension of this discovery timeline. And I think they’re going to produce more information than the defense actually ever would’ve wanted to have seen.
Mr. Jekielek: Now, tell us what happened here.
Mr. Patel: Yes. No, thanks, Jan. And I think we had a good discussion on that show. Basically, what happened maybe a month or two months ago, I forget the exact timing, the defense, in this case Sussmann, his attorneys filed a pleading to the court that said, excuse me, John Durham and the federal government, you are not providing us all of the information that we believe we are entitled to under the Federal Rules of Evidence, discovery.
And so I said a couple weeks ago when we were talking, I don’t know if they want to do that because John Durham’s MO has been to operate quietly and stealthily and not put too much information out into the public. Except when the defense demanded him to create a discovery obligation, he, John Durham, and I think smartly so, said, okay, you asked for it. And he filed a pretty extensive discovery pleading that we talked about last time. And this is a continuation of that because now John Durham is using the similar line of effort he did with the Danchenko conflicts counsel pleading in the Sussmann pleading.
But similarly, he’s basically saying I know you, the defense are going to ask why am I filing this conflict’s pleading? He could have filed a one-pager and just say, judge, we have information that there’s a conflict of counsel here. Please conduct a hearing behind closed doors. And no one would ever know about it. But since he probably saw that the defense would ask for more information yet again, he gave it to them, sort of a preemptive strike. And he’s allowed to do that.
So I think it’s again a critical blunder which has been continued by the defense’s response to this pleading, which we’ll talk about later in the show. So I don’t think they’ve been playing this right. And now they’re sort of running on media, which we can talk about as well later, to sort of justify the defense’s position and attack John Durham, which I think is incredibly stupid.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, okay, we definitely need to talk about that. But let’s just break down the pleading. I mean…
Mr. Patel: Yeah.
Mr. Jekielek: … there’s so many really, really fascinating nuggets of information that just, again maybe they were known to you, certainly unknown to me and many others that have been following this.
Mr. Patel: No, let me. Sorry to interrupt you. But I think we got to preface this. Remember, I was the chief investigator for Chairman Nunes of the entire Russiagate scandal. Our team figured out that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. Our team figured out that the FBI’s leadership was basically intentionally misleading a FISA court to get a surveillance warrant on a presidential campaign. Our team figured out that the same FBI agents and lawyers working on this case were having inappropriate relationships and personalizing and politicizing their investigation.
Here’s the shocker, Jan. I just talked to Devin again just this past week. He and I had never heard about this information, about the tech servers, about these allegations that are made in John Durham’s latest three pleadings. We, the guys that ran Russiagate, had no idea who these individuals were, who these companies were, and that they were doing this sort of surveillance. So it’s quite shocking.
Mr. Jekielek: And I definitely also need to ask you about whether you should have known. But before we do that, break it down. What is it that Durham has revealed here that’s so groundbreaking that got you to actually put out a very, very detailed statement that a lot of people have been citing?
Mr. Patel: Yes. So we’ve sort of done it in reverse. We’ve covered the legal basis of the pleading conflict. So we don’t need to go into that anymore. We had sufficiently covered. But before is this place called a factual background or an area where you have to plead facts supporting your pleading. So in any pleading or motion or brief in federal court, you have a fact portion and a legal portion. We cover the legal one.
The fact portion to me was what was more stunning, because what John Durham has basically said, and this is something that I’ve come to learn that science fiction couldn’t even conjure up, but John Durham has said the indicted individual, Michael Sussmann, reminding our audience the same Michael Sussmann who was the head lawyer for the DNC with Mark Elias and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the same guys that paid for the dossier through the Hillary Clinton campaign and their law firm and hired Fusion GPS and hired Christopher Steele. That was what I call, line of effort one.
On a parallel track, line of effort two, which has just been revealed to us, these same individuals, Sussmann and Elias and the Hillary Clinton campaign, according to the Durham filings in this last month show that the tech company that Michael Sussmann and the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign hired to go ahead and try to identify information, Alpha Bank server information tying Trump to Russia, while they were paid to do that. We covered it in a previous show, that Sussmann actually went to this tech company and said it doesn’t matter what you find, I need you to show me basically an end result that says Trump had ties with Russia.
This same individual, now indicted for lying to the FBI, Sussmann was also working on another line of effort to obtain a relationship through the same tech company so that he could infiltrate and surveil the White House. Now I know that’s, you’re probably like, okay, you’re crazy. You’ve lost your mind, Kash. This is, what are you doing out in Hawaii? Stop drinking Mai Tais. And it is crazy, right? That is the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, and the U.S. Trade Representative, amongst many others. That, Jan, is absolutely stunning. And there’s more to it and we’ll flesh it out in a little bit.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, and so here’s the other… It does sound a little bit like science fiction, like you said, right? And of course, this is based on the pleading. So there’s this other question, right? Because this pleading, how rock solid is this pleading? I’m sure a lot of people are wondering to themselves could this possibly be true, right?
Mr. Patel: Well, look, here’s what we know about John Durham. He indicted three people under his special counsel tenure—Klinesmith, Danchenko, and Sussmann. He’s revealed to us in his pleadings that his investigation is far from over. He’s investigating many other individuals, including other criminal activity related to people he’s already indicted. So he’s not done with those individuals either. And he’s possibly looking at campaigns and companies and a very far-reaching investigation.
And I remind people, John Durham’s been a prosecutor for over 20 years. I know him. He was the guy that was appointed to be basically the special counsel during the CIA’s rendition program, which was a very serious investigation. He was charged with going in and finding out if there’s any criminal activity during the rendition program. And for those that don’t know that, that involves all these sort of “torture techniques” that were utilized post 9/11 by the Intelligence Community and others. So probably one of the most serious subject matters ever handled by a prosecutor. He’s now handling the largest criminal conspiracy, I call it, in U.S. history.
So I don’t think John Durham’s going to put anything in a federal pleading to a federal court that he hasn’t already proved. And let’s put that aside. Me, as a former federal prosecutor knowing the guidelines and the rules of ethics, you can’t allege something in a pleading that you already haven’t obtained the evidence to prove. So that’s different and apart from whether or not a judge and a jury will adjudicate in your favor. That comes later.
But if you, the federal prosecutor say I’ve got the evidence, that’s the only way you can state it in a pleading, which is why I think based on John Durham’s history as a career federal prosecutor and his history along these cases in not filing extensive pleadings because he’s working sort of beneath the surface of the water, leads me to believe that there’s no way John Durham filed this just to be like, here, let’s put out some misinformation. It’s just not how he operates, and it’s not what the law would allow him to do.
Mr. Jekielek: So Kash, beyond this kind of bombshell allegation, what else is new because there’s multiple vantage points here? What else do you see?
Mr. Patel: Based on the pleadings, beyond the allegation that the Hillary Clinton campaign infiltrated White House servers to spy on a sitting president, putting that aside, what else is new is the following. I believe based on the allegations in the indictment, the same tech company that we just talked about a few minutes ago that Michael Sussmann hired to try and find the false information tying Donald Trump’s Trump Tower to Alpha Bank servers in Russia to create the narrative that Trump is colluding with Russia, that same tech company is this one same company in this pleading that John Durham is now saying to the world Michael Sussmann went back to them and said, okay, you, the same tech company, you go get a secure relationship so you can get into the White House.
Now, let me break that down. What he’s basically saying, he, Sussmann, getting paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC to do all this work, what he’s saying is, okay, the same tech company, because as we all know the White House is the most secure compound on planet Earth. So to hack it would be quite the feat. What’s the other way to do it? Obtain a relationship with someone who already has access to it and then have them contract with you to ride off their sort of “servers.” And while that sounds crazy that that would even happen, the only way that happens is if you, the contractor, in this case the tech company, goes in and says to the NSA or the Intelligence Community I need access through you.
And what John Durham’s pleading says is that Sussmann instructed this same tech company to get a “sensitive arrangement” to gain access into the White House. So what that tells me, Jan, is that this was not a hack. This was actually more sophisticated than a hack. What they wanted to do was later say we didn’t hire someone to hack the White House. They were on the books with the Intelligence Community to gain that access. To me, that’s more shocking, I guess because of my background, that the United States government and its Intelligence Community would permit a political operative to gain access to the White House servers. And that’s exactly what happened in this pleading that John Durham shows us.
Mr. Jekielek: But he doesn’t say that they went to the NSA or they went to one of these agencies. This is something, just to be clear here, this is something you’re inferring. You think this is the only way this could have happened, basically.
Mr. Patel: Well, yes. It’s my inference, but it’s my inference sort of from my background, being the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, being the Head of Counterterrorism, the Chief of Staff at the DOD, and after my tenure on the House Intelligence Committee.
For John Durham to use that word, sensitive arrangement, it’s a little easier for me to speak to it now since I’ve been out of government and I haven’t had access to the classified information, so I can tell you what I believe, but I can tell you in my entire career, a sensitive arrangement has never meant anything other than what we just said if you’re working with the United States Intelligence Community. That means the United States Intelligence Community pays you, the contractor, in this case the same tech company that Sussmann hired, for this relationship and then you, the contractor gain access.
Now, there’s so many questions that I have based on this that John Durham hasn’t answered. Who did it? Was it the NSA? Who authorized it? Was it the FBI? Then what arrangement did they have? Who got paid what money? And then what information did the tech company get, and who did they give it to? Or did the tech company give the NSA and the CIA or the IC more information? There’s a million questions.
But the bottom line, I think, is that there’s some criminal conduct in that arrangement because I don’t believe it’s lawful for the Intelligence Community to go out to a political operative and say, okay, we can set up this arrangement and you can sit and surveil the White House compound of a sitting president. That can’t be legal. You don’t even have to go to law school to know that.
Mr. Jekielek: Right. And of course, the pleading also says that this type of thing was happening prior to the White House. The White House was just kind of the escalation, I guess. Right?
Mr. Patel: Right. You’re right. So that’s a great point that actually no one else is talking about. In the pleading, John Durham says the arrangement between Sussmann and the tech company and the Hillary Clinton campaign, who was funding it, began in July of 2016. That means that’s when they entered into an agreement to do it, which means for months before, the spring of 2016 is when they were hatching this plan, during the election cycle. That basically is about the same time that they started their whole Christopher Steele dossier effort, in the spring of 2016.
So they’re mounting these parallel lines of effort to take out Donald Trump then a candidate. And as we move through the candidacy and he loses the election, then as you said, they say, okay, what do we do next? Well, let’s go to the White House and infiltrate the White House, which is just shocking on so many levels and I think breaks a number of federal laws.
Mr. Jekielek: So I remember when I read “The Plot Against the President” now many moons ago, so to speak, your kind of key mantra was follow the money. Follow the money. Actually, let’s roll this clip from “The Plot Against the President.”
Mr. Patel: And all of these things sort of started coming together in a very unusual fashion. I said, “Devin, we’re following the money, and I’m going to tell you right now that the DNC and Hillary paid for this.” It was 9:00 a.m. on a weekday. And he literally looks at me and he goes, “Kash, if you’re going to start drinking this morning, get out of my office.”
It always goes back to the money. And it’s the easiest thing to follow because you have to document it in some fashion or you got to move it in some way. And we were able to, pursuant to the judge’s authority, allow myself and one other colleague to visit banks attorneys and review in closed session the records. And we were not allowed to disclose it to anybody what we reviewed. And then finally, on the eve of the ruling of the court, Fusion disclosed that Christopher Steele had been paid by the DNC themselves.
There were names that would eventually come out that were being paid by Fusion, names now that are public, but at the time weren’t. Nellie Ohr, the wife of Bruce Ohr, was being paid by Fusion GPS. We would come to learn to do Russian intelligence information gathering and then submit it to the FBI. We were able to figure out that the attorneys, Perkins Coie, were the attorneys for the DNC. Nellie, Bruce’s wife, had been working for Fusion GPS.
The folks that Perkins Coie paid $10 million to and then they took that 10 million and paid Christopher Steele $168,000 to dig up dirt. They paid Nellie Ohr I think $50,000 to do her research against the President and his daughter. And they fed all of that directly to the bureau who then used it in the FISA and in investigation against the President. So now you’ve connected the money and the people and put the political party right in the middle of your opponent. It’s outrageous.
Mr. Jekielek: What strikes me here, and you can elucidate this more please, is that I think Attorney Durham is following the money here, right?
Mr. Patel: So yeah. Look, you don’t have to be a former federal prosecutor to know that money doesn’t lie, right? There’s either a payment and a record of it or there isn’t. And bank records are pretty powerful. What’s almost as powerful as bank records are very fancy law firms and they’re billing practices because these law firms, Perkins Coie, where Sussmann and Elias used to work on behalf of the Hillary campaign, getting paid tens of millions of dollars for their work, they as lawyers are bound to bill for what they are working on. So they have to say, oh, I spent four hours today working on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign related to X. John Durham smartly, and I’m guessing through the grand jury process or cooperation, obtained the billing records of Perkins Coie.
So what I said in the movie, “The Plot Against the President,” was follow the money, it was on line of effort one. There’s no way the Steele dossier was just concocted out of thin air, no one paid for it. What I told then Chairman Nunes was let’s get a subpoena, let’s go get the bank records, and we’ll see who paid who. Now back then, neither he nor I thought a political party would pay an opponent to go and make up dirt to shovel into the FISA Court and to have the FBI intentionally mislead that court. That back then to us was almost as shocking as what we’re talking about today. So it seems that the operation that was hatched at Perkins Coie by Elias and Sussmann was something that we, Devin and I only discovered 50 percent of.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, no, and this is actually something… I don’t know if this has been said exactly, but this is a whole giant line of effort, as you describe, that’s being kind of exposed here that just hasn’t really been in the knowledge of even the people that were doing this in-depth investigation in the first place.
Mr. Patel: You’re right. And for the doubters out there who are saying, well, this is just a pleading that has to do with conflicts of counsel. Well, you have to take the totality of the pleadings that John Durham has filed. Remember when we talked about how the defense wanted all of the details of discovery of the evidence in the case? Well, John Durham told the world you asked for it, no problem.
I put 24 people in the grand jury under oath. I’ve put the leadership of the FBI in there. I’ve put people who worked at the CIA in there. I’ve put people who had affiliations with the Hillary Clinton campaign in there. I’ve put lawyers in the grand jury. John Durham has obtained under oath information relating directly to this pleading and other criminal investigations he’s working on.
So based on that and the bank records, or the billing records I should say that he’s obtained from Perkins Coie, he’s able to tell us all this information in great detail, which is why it’s kind of irrefutable, just like it was irrefutable back then when the federal bank, or the federal court allowed us to see the bank records of Fusion GPS and we figured out they paid Christopher Steele through Sussmann and Perkins Coie.
Same thing here. John Durham figured out by following the money, well, your billing records say you, Sussmann, Elias, and Perkins Coie charged the Hillary Clinton campaign for this conduct. What are they going to come in and say? We were kidding. We meant to bill somebody else.
Mr. Jekielek: So Kash, the operative words in here, and I don’t want to belabor this too much, but it’s pretty wild. Ostensibly, the lawyers wanted for the tech company to establish an inference and a narrative.
Mr. Patel: Yes, you’re absolutely right. That’s a great point, Jan. And that’s not you making up those words or me making up those words. Those are John Durham’s words in his pleading that we’re now talking about. What he, John Durham is saying is that Sussmann and Elias and Perkins Coie, the lawyers for the DNC and Hillary campaign, requested the tech company to find a “inference and a narrative” through their sensitive arrangement to gain access to the White House server.
So again, the lawyers for the Hillary campaign are basically telling the same tech company that did the whole Alpha Bank nonsense, they’re saying go find me information that proves this point so we can tie Trump to Russia, even if it doesn’t exist.
Mr. Jekielek: So Kash, one of the things I think that maybe not everybody fully realizes is that this Sussmann indictment is actually based on your deposition of Sussmann way back when while you were on House Intel. And so I guess my question is who else of interest did you actually depose that we should be talking about right now?
Mr. Patel: So real quick, a quick summary. Back when we were running the Russiagate investigation, part of the investigation was to put witnesses under oath in Congress and depose them under oath under the penalty of perjury. I conducted interrogations of 60 some of those witnesses under oath to include Michael Sussmann, to include Mark Elias, to include Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, to include the leadership at the FBI and the IC and all that.
But also who was included was the leadership at the Hillary Clinton campaign, John Podesta, Jake Sullivan, the current National Security Advisor. And we asked these folks the same question, did they have any information about coordination, collusion, or conspiracy with Trump and Russia? And every one of them said no under oath.
Now, it took us two years to get those transcripts of those depositions out to the public. But they are now available. And they’re still available on the website of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence because when Ric Grenell was the DNI and I was his deputy, we finally forced the declassification of those transcripts. So our audience can still check those out there.
But one of the ones I feel that is a focus is Jake Sullivan, who’s the current National Security Advisor. And there’s a lot of reasons why I have questions about his conduct. And I think we can get into that.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, so what is it that would need to be looked at here in your mind?
Mr. Patel: So as we were talking about, an operation like this cannot occur without tens of millions of dollars, which we have now shown has been utilized from the Hillary Clinton campaign through their lawyers at Perkins Coie. The questions that people need to be asking now are who at the Hillary Clinton campaign said to spend tens of millions of dollars to do these line of efforts, the Steele dossier line of effort, the Alpha Bank server line of effort, and this latest line of effort that John Durham’s alleging in his pleading about infiltrating the White House servers to gain information tying Trump to Russia?
Somebody Jan, you don’t have to be in politics, you don’t have to be an FBI agent, you don’t have to be a federal prosecutor to know somebody had to say at the Hillary Clinton campaign yes, send $10 million to this law firm for these lines of effort.
Jake Sullivan at the time was one of the head chief advisors to then candidate Clinton’s campaign, as was Podesta, who was another individual I interrogated under oath. And then that money has to go from the campaign to the lawyers to the tech company through Sussmann, as we’ve talked about.
So I think John Durham is probably already looking at this, given that he has identified Jake Sullivan, by title at least, in his previous pleadings. So John Durham has specifically said that the Michael Sussmann indictment is based on the interrogation under oath he gave that I took at the House Intel Committee. He also mentioned in a previous pleading Jake Sullivan by title, saying the chief, and I’m paraphrasing here, but the chief senior advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign did X, Y, and Z. I think he’s looking, I don’t think he would’ve mentioned him like that because he’s easy to identify if he wasn’t looking at him.
But what Jake Sullivan has come out, if you recall in October of 2016, is that he specifically said, “Everybody should look at the Alpha Bank Trump server connection. It basically shows Trump had colluded with Russia.” Either that was a spectacular coincidence or the chief advisor for the Hillary Clinton campaign knew where tens of millions of dollars were being spent on that line of effort.
And I think the same question can be asked here. And it should because he is the current National Security Advisor of the President of the United States. The same question can be asked, did you, Jake Sullivan know that millions of dollars were being paid for the campaign, and you were the senior advisor to this law firm so they could go out and get an arrangement to access the White House servers?
Now, Jake Sullivan has paraphrased in the past in the media and also check out our interrogation of him in the deposition that he did not know what this millions of dollars was being spent on. I find that incredibly impossible to be the truth. And that’s why I think that investigation is so important. So I encourage people to check out that interrogation and look at what Jake Sullivan has tweeted out in the past.
And if any of these things bore out to be true, then there is a serious question as to is this individual suited to be the number one National Security Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief?
Mr. Jekielek: As we finish up here, there’s also this element of, in the response of Sussmann’s legal team to this pleading, which is basically I think we’ve had quite enough information, thank you. At least that’s my interpretation of it.
Mr. Patel: I guess it’s no surprise to you and me that the defense on Sussmann basically came out and said, hang on, pump the brakes, you, John Durham, because they filed a pleading just a couple days ago in response to John Durham’s motion. And what they’re basically saying is we, the defense, disagree with the factual assertions you have made in your pleading. I think it’s a last-ditch effort by the defense counsel to reel in their basically attempt to neutralize John Durham in the past by forcing him to provide more discovery.
It’s not going to succeed in my opinion. It’s a factual assertion the defense doesn’t have a right to come in and ask the judge to say, Judge, order the Department of Justice to say they’re wrong. That’s what trials are for. As we talked about earlier, I don’t think John Durham’s going to be alleging anything he hasn’t already proven. And so what the defense is doing is trying to obtain a media narrative to personally attack John Durham. I just don’t think that’s going to work. But I also think it shows their poor judgment, as they’ve done in the past, in terms of how their strategy is going to be in federal court.
So I don’t think they’re going to win that motion. But also, I think you’re going to see a few more motions like this from John Durham in the coming weeks. I don’t think you’ll see indictments for another couple of months, but I also believe, as we’ve always said in the past, that these are coming probably around the summertime. But maybe he’ll give us a springtime gift.
Mr. Jekielek: So Kash, I think it’s time for our shout-out.
Mr. Patel: It is time for our shout-out. And I’d like to take this opportunity to do a little different shout-out if I may. This week’s shout-out goes to the entire Russiagate team from the House Intel Committee. The six to eight of us that banded together in a basement for many, many months and sustained personal attacks to expose one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetuated against a presidential candidate and then president. Your efforts have directly led us to this conversation that we’ve had today, led us to John Durham and the investigation he’s conducting. And so thank you for being silent warriors alongside me in that effort. And we look forward to seeing everybody back next week on Kash’s Corner.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Follow EpochTV on social media: