search icon
Live chat

LIVE: Kash’s Corner: Tech Exec Was FBI Source for Years; Sussmann Billed Clinton Campaign for Alfa Bank Thumb Drives

Kash Patel and Jan Jekielek break down revelations from the trial of ex-Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann—from revelations that tech executive Rodney Joffe was an FBI source for years to evidence that Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for thumb drives he bought from Staples and gave to the FBI.

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

 

Kash Patel: Hey everybody, and welcome to the first ever live stream of Kash’s Corner with Jan and I. We figured what better way to kick it off than continuing our relentless efforts on Durham Watch Week. Jan and I even dropped in on the trial. Good evening, Jan. We’re not in the same location. Do you want to tell everyone where you are?

Jan Jekielek: Well, I’m kind of in an undisclosed location. I’m not going to actually say where I am, but apparently there’s some little technical problems that have caused this to be a little late. So sorry about that folks, but we’re going to get right into this and yes, indeed, Kash and I were able to actually visit the trial on Wednesday morning and it happened to be kind of the perfect day to do it.

Mr. Patel: Yeah, it did not miss. Jan, it looks like you’re playing the role of sleuth, former intelligence officer, Kash Patel, and I’m playing the role of fantastic journalist, Jan Jekielek tonight with your undisclosed location. I’m, of course, coming to you live from just next door to the courthouse, but we were able to go over so many things in trial. We saw the government’s case in chief come to a rest. We saw defense witnesses. We saw a summary of the presentations. It was pretty fantastic. And I think our audience is in for quite the ride tonight. Jan, where should we kick it off?

Mr. Jekielek: Well, why don’t we talk about our impressions, because being in the courtroom, for me, it was a real kind of visceral experience. I’ve never been in a federal courtroom before, I’ll be honest. And we were able to see some of the really, really big moments, and notably, actually, your testimony being used… your what? Sorry, not your testimony, your interrogation of Mr. Sussmann, back when you were at HIPC, under oath, being used to basically close the prosecution’s case, right?

Mr. Patel: Yes. So I interrogated… when I was a chief investigator at Russiagate down Capitol hill, I interrogated 60 some witnesses and all those transcripts were finally released during our tenure at DNI with Rick Grenell and Michael Sussmann was one of those individuals I interrogated in December 2017, I believe. And I asked him flat out, did you go there, there being the FBI, on behalf of a client? And he said, yes, under oath.

And that very statement and those pages were read into the record by the prosecutors for the government and John Durham’s special counsel team. And that’s why it said all along that this case is very hard to run away from the evidence because it’s not a he-said, she-said, it’s not just a witness, a testimonial case, as we call it. I, unlike you, have unfortunately spent too much time living in courtrooms as a former federal prosecutor and public defender.

But when you combine credible witness testimony with the defendant’s own statements under oath, it’s very hard to run away from that and say you didn’t say that, because your option is I was lying to Congress or I was lying to the FBI. It can’t both be you’re making up true statements to both of those. And on top of that, you have the defendant’s own statements, which were put into evidence.

The text message from Michael Sussmann himself to the FBI’s head general counsel, James Baker, the night before the meeting in 2016 at FBI headquarters, Michael Sussmann writes, and I’m paraphrasing, I am coming to you as a good Samaritan. I am not coming to you as a client, on behalf of any client… two statements that are completely opposite of each other, put in front of the jury for the charge that Michael Sussmann is indicted for, which is lying to the FBI about why he went there. And if that weren’t enough, Jan, there’s the thumb drives, and we can get into that now a little bit.

Mr. Jekielek: Right. But there’s also Baker’s own testimony, right? I think the combination of Baker’s testimony and your interrogation, the text of your interrogation, should kind of sum up the case, shouldn’t it?

Mr. Patel: Well look, with jury trials, and I’ve tried 60 of them to verdict, before juries in state and federal courts… Let me tell you the one thing that… Look, when I was a public defender, I represented some individuals charged with some pretty heinous and awful crimes. And when, as a prosecutor, I was prosecuting terrorists and criminals charged with some pretty heinous crimes. So have a rare perspective of being on both sides of the bar in the courtroom.

The one thing every single jury hated, without a doubt, was putting the charge aside itself, was being lied to. If they knew the defendant was lying through his lawyers, because the lawyer… it’s not the lawyers’ fault, the lawyers have to use the evidence they have to make a case with a client—defense and the prosecution. But if I was able to prove as a public defender that the cops were lying, then the jurors got turned off quickly on the state’s case.

Now, if you flip it and you’re able to show that the prosecution is lying and the government is going to be in very, very deep trouble. In this instance, as you stated Jan, it’s pretty clear that the document itself, along with James Baker’s testimony, unequivocally show that the only person lying was Michael Sussmann. And the second part of the charging document requires a conversation about materiality, which we’ll get into. But I just want to circle back on the thumb drive issue, which is sort of the… I don’t want to call it icing on the cake, but a nice touch by the prosecutors.

So the thumb drives… little buttons that basically plug into your USB ports, that Michael Sussmann loaded all the Alfa-Bank fantasy information onto, that he received from the tech executive, Rodney Joffe. The government very cleverly showed where, and when, Michael Sussmann purchased those thumb drives, at a Staples in Washington, DC, around the corner from his law office.

And they actually mapped it out on the interweb mapping system where you could just see the blue dots, when you’re trying to figure out where to go and what restaurants to go to. And it was a minute’s walk away. If that wasn’t enough, the government introduced a billing record for those thumb drives. Michael Sussmann billed the Alfa-Bank thumb drive that he took to the FBI and handed to James Baker, to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

It’s some pretty damning evidence, both testimonial, actual evidence in the terms of the thumb drives, and then witness statements. And in this case, particularly the defendants’ statements under oath and his own text messages. So I think the first four parts, or elements, as we call it, of the charging document have been proven sufficiently… where the defense was trying to hang their hats in their summations was whether or not it was material.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, it’s kind of incredible. So I was looking through… I was looking at John Haughey’s final reporting as both the defense and the prosecution closed their case. The prosecution, of course, said there are some cases that are close.

This is me paraphrasing… but this one’s just not close. It’s pretty clear cut… kind of like how you just described it. But on the other hand, you have the defense basically saying, well, this is like people blowing snow all over the place and pretending like it snowed last night and there’s actually all misdirection. And I was kind of re-reading this. It’s incredible that they would say this, but this is perhaps to the uninitiated like myself… Perhaps you’ve done the exact same thing as a defense attorney.

Mr. Patel: Oh, I’ve done it a lot of times. I represent murderers, narco traffickers as a public defender, those charged with sexual assault and bank robberies and everything you can think of. And sometimes when you have such evidence, basically a videotape showing the jury your client robbing the bank and in this case, you have the defendant’s own words, showing him lying about his representations to the FBI, all you can do is throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and just say, hmm-mm, hopefully one juror catches a piece of that and maybe gets tossed off the scent of what the prosecution’s putting forward, because it is the government’s burden at the end of the day, to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And sometimes… sometimes, rarely, that strategy prevails. But if you’re hanging your hat entirely on that strategy, it’s not looking good for Michael Sussmann. I think the facts and the law in this case support, and warrant, a conviction by this jury, but we’re going to have to wait till next week to see what they come up with.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, I do want to talk a little bit about the jury because there are some concerns about the jury. Before we go there, there’s this… when we were talking offline, I think we were talking about… you said Joffe is kind of playing the Steele role in this whole caper, so to speak. So why don’t you tell me how you see that?

Mr. Patel: Yes, so I dubbed Joffe as the Christopher Steele of the Alfa-Bank caper. As we know, Christopher Steele, the paid informant through the Hillary Clinton campaign and Perkins Coie the law firm Michael Sussmann worked at, was paid by Fusion GPS as a cutout to dig up dirt. And we all know that dirt was proven to be false, by our investigation… things like the Nunes Memo and the HIPC report, and so much other corroborated reporting we were able to put out there by the FBI’s own documentation, showing it to be a total fraud.

Now, on a parallel track, while Michael Sussmann was running this operation Line of Effort 1, the Steele Dossier for the Hillary Clinton campaign using tens of millions of dollars, they had a parallel operation— Line of Effort 2. Line of Effort 2, was through tech executive, Rodney Joffe. What’s he? Who is he? What did he do? He was paid or charged or hired by this same group of characters, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, leaking to the media at the same time… what he went out and was charged with going to get the Russia Alfa-Bank connection.

What’s that mean? They wanted to connect Donald Trump and servers in Russia through this Alfa-Bank company to say, look, we got him. Donald Trump is a Russian asset. The problem, as the testimony came out during the Sussmann prosecution from the FBI themselves, they said the day after Michael’s Sussmann turned over those thumb drives paid for by the Clinton campaign with the Alfa-Bank fantasy, the FBI determined in less than 24 hours, that the information was bogus, just like they knew the information in the Steele Dossier was bogus. But just like they did there, they buried that lead.

The leadership at the FBI, James Comey, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Bill Priestap, that Lisa Page, all part of the corrupt cabal, drove forward on that investigation anyway, and launched a counterintelligence investigation based on the fraudulent Alfa-Bank information that Rodney Joffe fabricated.

And if that weren’t enough, Rodney Joffe was a paid informant of the FBI at the time, just like Christopher Steele was. Both of these guys, paid informants, digging up false information, paid for by a political campaign, illegally using political campaign funds to fund opposition research that is false, then sharing it with the FBI and entering into what we call circular reporting.

At the same time, they were directed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Fusion GPS to go and leak this information to the media, so media articles could be written and basically the FBI could be like, oh, look at that. We were told about the Alfa-Bank server and this independent media organization who is pretending to be credible, has found the same. So we’re going to corroborate it with circular reporting. It was all quarterbacked by Hillary Clinton and Robby Mook’s testimony, which we haven’t talked about, was some of the most shocking testimony I found, especially since I’d never seen this information before.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, let’s… I want to get you to talk about Mook briefly, but let’s talk about this. So Scott Hellman’s testimony about this one day and his comment that in a day he’d figured out that this information was false and that he thought that the person submitting the information possibly had mental deficiency… I forget exactly how he put it. I just found that unbelievably stunning, given everything that precipitated, like you said, I was kind of like mouth… jaw dropping.

The other piece was when we were actually in court, there was this element of Joffe going to his friend Grasso, as Grasso testified, providing these IP addresses, one or two, I can’t remember exactly, and basically saying don’t… I might be at risk, don’t disclose my name and not going through his confidential… his handler, right, which, I think, you said is actually kind of against the rules as I noted. So that this is another piece that to me is just kind of jaw dropping.

Mr. Patel: Just like Christopher Steele. You’re right. As a foreign federal prosecutor, we ran lots of assets and sources all over the world. And the one thing you do is, your FBI agent handler handles the source. Period. Nobody else. And then you take that information through the handler and bring it into court to prosecute your case.

But just like Christopher Steele went out and leaked to the FBI and leaked to the media at the same time, fraudulent information to create circular reporting, and then was fired by the FBI for breaking the cardinal rule of going to the media, Joffe was running the same charade paid for by the Clinton campaign, with the Alfa-Bank server information. He didn’t go… he, Rodney Joffe, did not go to his handler. He went to his friend in the FBI who he knew he could hide behind and said, here’s some information I’m ceding it to you.

And I believe that Grasso also admitted he had no idea that Joffe was going to the media, courtesy of Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie. But for Joffe to fail as an FBI agent, 17 year counterintelligence agent, for him to say, I’m not going to tell anyone at the FBI that someone else’s source is coming to me, is another disastrous violation of FBI policy.

So Grasso and Joffe should have been fired, but eventually Joffe was terminated by the FBI and we still don’t have all the documentation saying why that was. What we do know is, John Durham has said in pleadings, in the subsequent prosecution, that Rodney Joffe maintains his status as a target of the special counsel’s investigation. So if people were wondering why we did not hear from Rodney Joffe in the Michael Sussmann trial, it’s likely because he told the government that he would plead the fifth amendment, the privilege against self-incrimination. So he didn’t take the witness stand.

And that’s pretty telling in and of itself and a jury… look, a jury can be instructed all at once, but at the end of the day, they’re common sense folks from the neighborhood. And they’re wondering why… they’re probably wondering a couple things. Why didn’t Michael Sussmann testify? We know he has a constitutional right not to. What happened to Rodney Joffe? And what about some of these other FBI agents?

Oh, and by the way, the FBI agent Hyde who came in and started the counterintelligence investigation, based on the information Rodney Joffe provided for Line of Effort 2, paid for by the Clinton campaign. This special agent admitted under oath in the Sussmann case this week that he is under federal investigation for lying about the investigation and withholding evidence of innocence or what we call exculpatory information and that the investigation was not even launched false on false premises, but that he may have provided this false information to the court and withheld other information that a court and FBI agents should have seen. Because they were saying the seventh floor, that being Andy McCabe and James Comey and company ordered this investigation to be opened, which is another serious criminal conspiracy that I hope John Durham is looking at.

Mr. Jekielek: And since we’re kind of doing a round up here of sorts, tell me, okay, so what is it about Mook’s testimony that you found so problematic?

Mr. Patel: Yes. So Robbie Mook, another guy that we’ve talked about in the past… In 2016, Robbie Mook was the Clinton campaign manager, basically the guy running her effort to become president of the United States. He comes in and testifies… well, let me pause there. He testified under oath to me, back… just like Michael Sussmann did when I was running the HIPC investigation and all those transcripts are available on duhamwatch.com for free. Everybody can go read them themselves. And I urge our audience to go make up your own minds and read the material of these witnesses under oath.

So Robbie Mook then, fast forward five years later, comes into the courthouse as a defense witness, not as a witness for the government. Michael Sussmann calls him. And he actually gets the judge to agree to allow him to interject into the government’s case because Robbie Mook has a vacation to go to a siesta in Spain.

Jan, in all my years of prosecuting and defending cases, I had never heard of a judge accommodating that. When a federal witness is under subpoena, you succumb to the trial scheduled in order, we do not succumb to your vacation needs. Boy did this backfire. Right in the middle of the government’s case, Robbie Mook goes on the witness stand and not only admits, basically, that this whole thing was concocted by the Hillary Clinton campaign, he actually pointed the finger at Hillary. He said she knew about it. She agreed to it. And she sent Rodney Joffe and company, through Michael Sussmann and Fusion GPS, to plant the false story in the media.

And then here’s the kicker. What did she do with it? She and Jake Sullivan, who we could talk about in a second, her other campaign manager, the current national security advisor to the president of the United States, who I also interrogated under oath, they acted all surprised the day after the leak in the media and said, look, we have evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, but they were the ones that bought and paid for this phony garbage. And so their circular reporting continues in the media and also the FBI tried to run with it.

And so this just shows finally what we have been proving the entire time that Hillary Clinton was in on it from the beginning. And now John Durham has put that in front stage or on front stage for the world to see… actually I have to correct myself, the defense did. You would expect John Durham to try to elicit that testimony, but the defense star witness put it on there, her campaign manager. So maybe Robbie Mook’s siesta to Spain needs to be a little longer than originally planned. I don’t think he’s too popular in the Clinton world right now.

Mr. Jekielek: It’s an unbelievable series of events here. Talking about Hillary Clinton… I was shocked to see that William Barr went on Blaze TV and was saying that this is almost, or I think he said it, this is seditious behavior in his opinion. That, I was not expecting.

Mr. Patel: Well, William Barr was the attorney general. And if he thought it was seditious behavior, maybe he should have done more to organize prosecutorial efforts against these line of efforts that Devin and I, and others, at House Intel gave to him… the entire investigation and the documentation and then he, with federal subpoena power, could have obtained so many more documents so much faster if he had made it a priority, especially if he thought it was sedition, but instead, like so many others in Trump world, he and Esper were out there selling books and making money off their failures in government service.

Mr. Jekielek: You know, you mentioned how it really shocked you… and we actually talked about this in an episode, right, that the judge would actually allow this Mook testimony, which turned out to be so supportive for the prosecution ultimately, right?

Mr. Patel: Yes.

Mr. Jekielek: So there’s also this element… I’m just going to look in my notes. There were three… I was prepping for this looking at our Truth Over News channel with Hans and Jeff and they noted three things. There was one witness who clearly donated to the Clinton campaign. Another one was working 12 years in cybersecurity, but didn’t recognize some of these big players that a lot of Americans recognize in cybersecurity like Mr. Sussmann, and of course, finally that one about Sussmann’s daughter being on the same rowing team… is it the judge’s? I forget the relationship, but basically, I mean, DC, everybody knows everybody. I mean, how does this work exactly?

Mr. Patel: Yes. I think you mean jurors, not the witnesses. The jurors that were paneled on this case, so yes-

Mr. Jekielek: Yes. Sorry. If I said witnesses that absolutely… I’m talking about the jurors here. Thank you.

Mr. Patel: Yes. So look, it’s Washington DC, and this is one of the reasons people dislike Washington so much, especially when we’re trying to get those in our government who broke their oath of office to be held accountable in criminal court. But what you have happened here is look, having picked 60 some odd juries myself in criminal court, you’re never going to get a jury that has 12 people that you want completely. If you’re getting six you’re winning. And if you know you’re going to get a couple of folks who are not going to be, politically in this case, politically aligned with you and in DC many so.

But what you have is a process in voir dire that the judge and the prosecutor and defense go through to say, you have to be able to put those efforts, those biases aside. And look, some jurors can, and some jurors can’t.

But what you need in Washington DC, and what I think John Durham has found, is one juror to maintain his ground, to say the law and the facts in this case, with the politics aside warrant and mandate a conviction, because the government has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt. Now there’s that whole thing about jury nullification, and we’ll get to that. But I think we should probably talk real quick about this whole piece of the charging document called materiality, which is necessary in order for Michael Sussmann to be convicted.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, okay. So lay it out. First of all, materiality, for those of us that haven’t been initiated into the whole concept, even, but I suspect most of the viewers at this point have, but how does that work?

Mr. Patel: So when you’re charged with a crime, there are these things called elements. Think of it as baking a cake, you need ingredients. Well in a crime, you need elements. And in proving that an individual who’s charged with lying to the FBI lied, you have to prove he intentionally and knowingly lied to the FBI, which is a part of the executive branch.

And the back end of that is you have to prove the lie was material. What does that mean? It means that the FBI relied on it, or the executive branch where the FBI sits, the department of justice, the CIA, the NSA, and the White House, all relied on that information somehow.

Now the defense in closing arguments just this morning, or earlier this afternoon, heavily had to focus on the materiality position because they couldn’t overcome the evidence that we talked about showing Michael Sussmann actually lied with intent and knowingly doing so based on his testimony to HIPC and me and his text messages, the thumb drives, and the testimony of James Baker and others.

Now the materiality argument is sort of this part of the defense, where they’re, let’s throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and maybe something will stick. What they said was, and I’m summarizing… the defense attorneys  well, even if my client Michael Sussmann did lie, it’s not a big deal. It’s not like anyone at the FBI really changed course based on that information, which is a tough sell in this case.

You had the FBI launch a counterintelligence investigation into a candidate for the presidency of the United States of one of the major parties in America, and continue that investigation into him when he was sitting as president, based on the bogus information that Michael Sussmann gave to the FBI general counsel and lied about. I would say that is somewhat pretty material. You don’t have to be a lawyer to figure that out.

And that’s why we have jurors in common sense backgrounds from everyday parts of our lives, who are put on these panels to review these cases, because that’s what the government was arguing against. They were saying, how could this not be material? Look at the millions of dollars that was spent in investigating it. Look at the people who lied about it in the FBI that are under our investigation for lying. Look at the FISA warrants that were launched based on this. Look at a president and his campaign that were attacked by their political opponent with campaign dollars, being used to hire people for opposition research purposes.

So the only thing left for the defense in this case, which is why I believe the facts and the law warrant a conviction for Michael Sussmann is what we call jury nullification. And basically that is, and that’s why people are so scared about DC, but I think what the facts as we have outlined, the witness testimony, the paper testimony, and the documentary testimony, it’s going to be tough, but the defense is basically saying they’re not allowed to straight out argue it because it’s illegal.

So you have to get creative and say, my client, Michael Sussmann was doing this amazing work for Hillary Clinton. We know everybody hated Donald Trump. So just acquit him anyway, because Michael Sussmann was there to save the world against the evil Donald Trump.

It’s a very tough sell, especially when the evidence is so damning in this case, as it is, and the prosecution can… and also the other thing I should say before moving to the prosecution is, the defense was arguing the burden of proof.

Look, as a public defender, you always remind the jury what the burden of proof is, but if you have to rest on it and make it a big part of your case, you’re asking everyday human beings to set aside the government’s evidence and to look at some other paint dot on the wall. And hopefully they’ll be mesmerized by it enough to return an acquittal. So it’s going to be a tough sell. I’ve looked at all the media coverage about it today, half the world is saying he’s getting convicted, the other half saying he’s not. And that’s what makes these cases so tough.

But I think the information that was revealed by John Durham’s team in the case against Michael Sussmann has been so revealing for all the reasons we talked about and should be the basis for so many more investigations and prosecutions and congressional oversight, because as a side note, Devin Nunes and I subpoenaed 17 times over, this information from the Department of Justice and the FBI, and it was never turned over to us. And that just shows you how bad some of the corrupt cops at the FBI and DOJ were. And we heard from some of the defense witnesses who I think were in on it, former people that used to work at DOJ.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, okay. Let’s talk about the defense notices. Before we go there, it strikes me, and this is something that comes out in these recent Truth Over News hits as well, is that, it’s almost like the Sussmann defense’s case was to show the FBI in not too positive light. And I mean, none of this trial whether it’s the prosecution or the defense, they’re not showing the FBI to be in a very positive light here at all.

Mr. Patel: Well, that’s the irony of ironies, Jan. I think the whole thing… and you and I saw this when we were in court watching the trial this week, we’ve proven… we… you, me, incredible journalists, Devin Nunes, the HIPC investigation, the Nunes Memo, everything we have on durhamwatch.com, has proven that the FBI lied by utilizing the FBI’s own documentation, their own corrupt files, their own testimony when they went to get the FISA warrants, when they launched an information investigation based on Christopher Steele and now the Alfa-Bank server stuff, we’ve shown why so many people don’t trust FBI leadership anymore because they politicized the nation’s number one law enforcement agency.

But what happened in this case is an extension of that. And I don’t think the American public is too thrilled. And that’s why when you hear from defense witnesses who are trying to prop up this very bureau that lied to them, it’s just a tough sell.

I didn’t buy it and I knew them. I used to work for them, the defense witnesses that Michael Sussmann called in this case. And where was their career reliability, their career integrity, their career prosecutorial skills, to cut through the Clinton campaign lies on the Steele Dossier and Alfa-Bank narrative? Where were their career efforts to comply with congressional subpoenas to produce documentation that was mandated under law? Why did they hide all of that information?

They, being the defense witnesses Tasha Gauhar and Mary McCord—everybody should read their testimony. They didn’t provide the whole truth, I believe. They were duped at the very worst, but I think at the very best they were in on it for political or affiliated reasons, just like the FBI leadership was, and now we have zero faith in the leadership at the Department of Justice, and it’s going to be tough to restore.

Mr. Jekielek: And what was the purpose of having these defense witnesses? That’s the part though, the two that we saw, I didn’t fully really understand what the benefit to the defense was of having these witnesses.

Mr. Patel: You know, Jan I’m really not sure because the defense witnesses both came in and submitted notes to the jury that said, Michael Sussmann went to the FBI on behalf of a client. And I don’t even believe they… one of them personally knew Sussmann. The other one personally had never met him. So I’m not sure what it was other than to muddy the waters to say, we’ve got former high ranking DOJ officials testing on behalf of Michael Sussmann.

You, the jury, should count that almost as a character witness style evidentiary presentation, because this is who Michael Sussmann hangs out with. And if I were the jury, I’d be like, well, if these 15, 20 year prosecutors who were in the senior most positions of the DOJ, who had the FBI working for them, who had Andy McCabe and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and Bill Priestap and James Comey working for them, and we now know this entire thing was a fraud and a charade and an unlawful conspiracy, why did you suss it out? That’s your job.

But they didn’t like Donald Trump. I know that for a fact, they don’t like that man. And they let their emotions get in the way. And I hope this jury shows the world what our judicial system is capable of. We can correct our career civil servants, like the Tasha Gauhars and the Mary McCords. We can correct the criminal culprits, like the James Comeys, Andy McCabe, Peter Strozk, Bill Priestap, Lisa Page, Fusion GPS. Even the Glen Simpsons and the Robbie Mooks and even maybe the Jake Sullivans.

Juries have the power, the only power to deliver that accountability. And that’s why I think so much is hanging on this case. And I really hope they get it right Jan. I really hope. From my perspective, it’s not even hope… a conviction is the only thing that the law and the facts warrant in this case, and there would be a gross miscarriage of justice to do anything otherwise.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, so the jury’s deliberating now, and I guess on Tuesday, that’s when the official deliberations will be happening. You’re saying this is the only way, but why does everything, as you described it, hang on a conviction here. What does that mean exactly?

Mr. Patel: Well, it’s the second case that John Durham has brought that we’re reminding in our audience. The first case against Kevin Kleinsmith resulted in a conviction of the FBI lying to the FISA court, which is a pretty substantial marking, but of course the mainstream media refused to cover it.

Now you have the Clinton campaign essentially on trial for running and quarterbacking this entire thing through Michael Sussmann. So accountability… even though we were able to get 17 individuals fired from DOJ and FBI for their fraudulent unlawful conduct during the Russiagate investigation, that’s not what Americans want. They want accountability for government officials who are in on the charade, and, it’s more than a charade, it’s a criminal conspiracy.

And that’s why Michael Sussmann’s the first large player to go to trial on these matters. And there are more indictments coming. There’s Danchenko in the fall. And I believe John Durham’s going to return two to four more indictments this summer on the overarching conspiracy. And as we said, tech executive Joffe and all these other individuals in the joint venture conspiracy as John Durham has outlined it are in his crosshairs.

So it will enable the American public to get educated on this because the mainstream media won’t cover it, but we will. And it will also allow John Durham in the public opinion, the media opinion, to be validated. I think he’s already been validated with the amazing work he’s done, and this team has done by putting all this information into the public forever. It’s there, it can’t be deleted.

So a conviction would help in terms of… you hate to talk about it from a communication or media perspective, but you have to, because that’s how the American people are going to digest this information ultimately. And so many want accountability within government, especially from those who are supposed to issue and execute accountability without government or outside of government for having violated their oaths of office.

Mr. Jekielek: Well Kash, as we kind of finish up the episode, there are a number of users that actually have questions for us from the chat. So I’m going to hit you up with some of these. And so one of them is just a direct follow up to what we just talked about from Lisa Talin. She asks what would it mean to Durham’s future indictments if this current case failed to get a conviction?

Mr. Patel: Legally, it doesn’t affect the future indictments as much as people might think. I think from a media perspective, it’s a bigger negative, it’s a bigger blemish because they’ll say, oh, John Durham’s special counsel status is tainted or he failed in his efforts. So I think you have to rely on folks educating themselves with the information that we’ve been going over and all the other information we’ve put out. But he’s got a couple… he’s got the Danchenko case and it’s a strong case, I believe, as well.

And so I don’t think legally it impacts, but it could help it a lot. A conviction would help because other people would see who are in John Durham’s possible future investigations, that he was able to retain two convictions now, one in trial. And that always endorse the benefit of the government in terms of proving the larger conspiracy.

Mr. Jekielek: All right, let’s go to this one. Michael Corey, question, “Kash, have you looked specifically into Rodney Joffe’s IP patent, specifically domaining system and methods of operating using restricted channels seems to be a smoking gun because after the 2016 election, the filing attorney changes to Perkins Coie.” Now that’s interesting. I didn’t know about that.

Mr. Patel: Well, that’s interesting. And what also came out during the testimony that Jan and I witnessed about Rodney Joffe was in 2016 and 2017, he billed Perkins Coie three plus million dollars… he and his firm, New Star Technologies, or whatever it was, for work. So it’d be pretty revealing to see what the nature of that work was and what that money was actually spent on, and also why he was terminated from the FBI. But the underlying technical information, I can’t really speak to

Mr. Jekielek: Elco Mike… Jan and Kash, “Why doesn’t Sullivan’s wife recuse from oversight of Durham?” That’s an interesting one.

Mr. Patel: Well, I think what he’s referring to is Jake Sullivan, the current national security advisor works in the office… Jake Sullivan’s wife, the current national security advisor, his wife works in the office of the general advising Merrick Garland. And she could recuse herself if she was immediately involved in the investigation. You know, the department has stated she is not. And John Durham, he’s a seasoned prosecutor. He doesn’t report to her. He reports directly to the attorney general, if anyone, on these matters. And so I think she just doesn’t have a role in it, but for appearances, I agree with our viewer. She probably should have refused entirely.

Mr. Jekielek: And a final question here, Eric Harker, “The whole enchilada aside, will any of this move the needle? Will this result in any fundamental lasting changes? Will something like this just happen again, or has this actually made a difference?”

Mr. Patel: Well, I think it’s to be determined. We’ve started the process. We started with our HIPC investigation. We started with the Nunes Memo and the HIPC report. We got to the Inspector General’s report over time, which validated our entire investigation, that the Steele Dossier was fraudulently obtained, fraudulently used by the FBI, and they lied. The FBI lied to a federal court through the Department of Justice to unlawfully surveil a presidential candidate. And we’ve proven all that. And that’s a multi-year effort.

Now what you have is John Durham picking up this investigation from a prosecutorial perspective and doing the ultimate test for accountability. So, as I said, this trial of Michael Sussmann, hopefully the second conviction to be had after the conviction of the FBI in the Russiagate scandal, would go a long way to restoring the public’s faith that our government officials and political campaigns cannot corrupt an election system and cannot take away the public’s faith in our law enforcement agencies. But a lot more work has to be done, I agree, but this would be a great start, which is why I think a conviction, not only is warranted, but would go a long way to doing so, but there’s a lot of work left after that.

Mr. Jekielek: All right, Kash. Well, I think it’s time for our shout out.

Mr. Patel: So I think our shout out has to go for our first live stream viewing ever of Kash’s Corner to everybody on live chat. I don’t know if people knew this, but we do a live chat every week where Jan or I, or sometimes both are on. And thanks to our tremendous viewers on live chat who ask such entertaining and serious questions that I think help educate our audience writ large. And this is why we do the show, Jan. So this week’s shout out goes through our live chat. And I just want to say personally thanks everybody for tuning in. Sorry about the initial hiccup. We’ll try to get that right next time. And I appreciate all the comments that I’m getting on Truth Social, both for my latest children’s book, “The Plot Against the King,” which I wrote for the Russiagate for children. And I also appreciate all the feedback from Kash’s Corner and the tremendous effort that Epoch TV is doing to continue to host this show. So we will see all of you next week with a verdict in the Sussmann case.

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

Read More
Popular
Related Videos