“You can’t say it’s attorney-client privilege, and then sneakily have it sent out to six different media outlets because you want that story, that narrative … out in the mainstream media.”
While Clinton associates including former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook, campaign lawyer Marc Elias, opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and tech executive Rodney Joffe have jumped into the fray to issue pleadings asserting attorney-client and work-product privileges, special counsel John Durham “completely destroys them with their own work,” Kash says.
In this episode, Kash and Jan break down what’s in John Durham’s latest pleadings, the judge’s order, the defense’s filings, and the stunning misfiled emails between Fusion GPS and members of the media—which were erroneously publicized without redactions.
Here is the link to the article Jan referenced at the end of the episode about Beijing’s long arm targeting Shen Yun artists in upstate New York.
Kash Patel: Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Kash’s Corner. This week’s episode is coming to you from Epoch Times D.C. Bureau.
Jan Jekielek: Well, Kash, it seems like Special Counsel Durham is giving us, well, not just him actually, Durham and people responding to Durham, are giving us a lot of fodder for Kash’s Corner these days.
Mr. Patel: So I guess we’re doing another Durham-based episode, Jan.
Mr. Jekielek: Before we go there, let’s talk a little bit about free speech. Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. And so, of the things that I found really fascinating, I mean unbelievable, is the response on the side of the folks who seem to have been dominating Twitter for the past however many years. Right? And there’s, I mean, there’s people screaming. And there’s people basically saying well, there’s just going to be all this disinformation that’s going to be dangerous to democracy.
Mr. Patel: Yeah. So I’ve never been on Twitter. As you know, I’m biased. I’m a Truth Social guy now, but I have followed Twitter over the years and it was utilized when I ran the Russiagate investigation as a tool for disinformation by the likes of guys like Adam Schiff, who was the Democratic leader here on the House Intel Committee at the time.
It’s not surprising to me that these same folks who utilized Twitter and all the other applications and platforms and mainstream media outlets to go out and purvey fake information about Russiagate, since that’s what we’re talking about today, have now suddenly done a 180 and said, “Uh-oh, if Elon Musk buys Twitter, it’s the death of democracy and the full start of disinformation.” And I was like, hang on a second, you guys have been putting out disinformation on Twitter for five years. And now it’s starting because Elon Musk bought it? It doesn’t really matter. But I think it’s best highlighted by, of course, none other than Adam Schiff.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, so there’s this tweet, and this has gotten a lot of responses, let’s just say. But he says, “Here’s my take on the world’s richest man buying Twitter.” He says, “He’s great with car and rocket, but I’m concerned his personal deals will stop the fight against disinformation on social media. The problem on Twitter hasn’t been too much content moderation. It’s too much hate.”
Mr. Patel: I don’t know that I can encapsulate in an entire episode how wrong Adam Schiff has been on everything from a fact-based perspective when it comes to Russiagate intelligence and national security. And for him to put that tweet out this week, just because Elon Musk is buying Twitter, shows you how far along the mainstream media has gone completely off the rails.
He, Adam Schiff, the single most person who is responsible for spreading disinformation on Russiagate saying he had evidence Donald Trump colluded with Russia, saying the intelligence community had all this information, and then going out to the mainstream media and feeding them these lies because they were in bed with him to spread a false narrative for four years and bamboozled the world into believing that Russiagate actually happened and Donald Trump conspired with Russia.
It was a total falsehood. Adam Schiff knew it. At the time, I was running the Russiagate investigation. He was the leader of the Minority on the House Intel Committee, Devin Nunes was the then chairman. He had access to all the information we had access to. The transcripts are the best example. The 60 some odd transcripts that I took at depositions of cabinet secretaries, Intel officials, DOJ, FBI, Fusion GPS, all the like. We finally forced those deposition transcripts to light, and what did they show? The headline, Adam Schiff knew the entire time there was no factual basis to perpetuate the Russiagate narrative. So when a guy like that issues this tweet, I just think it’s …
America should pause and say the King Kong of disinformation is now coming up and saying he’s all of a sudden scared that Twitter’s going to be the landing ground for disinformation, when you and I have been talking about it, right, at least over the last few years, Twitter’s been the ground where people spread defamation, where people attack others mercilessly.
Twitter’s hypocrisy on who they let on their platform and who they kick out has been on full display for years. They’ve suspended folks like, obviously, President Trump, Babylon Bee, and all these other journalists who are actually doing fact-based reporting because they had the audacity to say Trump didn’t collude with Russia.
Mr. Jekielek: Oh, and something very interesting and, of course, there’s all sorts of examples. There’s this whole element around the Hunter Biden laptop, the censorship of the “New York Post,” all sorts of stuff about COVID origins I was just talking about today. At many, many levels, this has happened, although Twitter wasn’t as bad as some of the other platforms, frankly, around that one. Now here’s the thing. So I’m thinking back to how we first met actually. And this was after I read Lee Smith’s book, “The Plot Against the President.” I remember reading it, thinking, man, this guy Kash, man. It’s really, really interesting what he’s gotten himself into.
Mr. Patel: I paid Lee a lot of money to write nice things about me. No. I’m glad you brought Lee Smith up. He’s a brilliant journalist. He wrote the number one seller, “The Plot Against the President.” And it was later turned into a brilliant film by Amanda Milius by the same name, “The Plot Against the President.”
I’ve never given our viewers a homework assignment, but I’m giving one now. If you haven’t read the book, “The Plot Against the President,” and seen the movie, then you have to do that this weekend and tell everyone you know about it because it is the essence of Russiagate. Lee Smith was the only reporter that Devin and I basically allowed to come into our universe because we knew he was going to report truthfully. And he told the Russiagate story. He told everything at the time that is now being proven true in the mainstream media. He reported it back then as truth, but got excoriated for it.
And that’s why it’s so important for people to realize the arc of where we’ve come. And we started the show, I think, appropriately talking about where Twitter was and where it’s going now and the likes of Adam Schiff and the purveyors of disinformation. And you brought the “New York Post” and the Hunter Biden laptop.
They reported and broke the Hunter Biden laptop story, and Twitter kicked them off, suspended their account because they reported it, because it was helpful to President Trump and it was hurtful to President Biden. And here we are now, everyone in the mainstream media admitted the Hunter Biden laptop is not Russian disinformation, and the Russiagate hoax by Adam Schiff and others was disinformation.
So when you juxtaposition those two stories and you talk about great guys like Lee Smith and Amanda Milius and their work, I think that’s the backdrop for everything we’re talking about today. But now we’re in John Durham’s world and basically he’s feeding off “The Plot Against the President,” all the work we did that’s in that book and in that film. So I think it’s a good launching pad and I had to just acknowledge those two who have become, Lee and Amanda, who become dear friends.
Mr. Jekielek: So this is actually something really interesting. This whole approach that Durham is taking is very atypical to anything that a special counsel government attorney would typically do, but he’s basically feeding off of the defense strategy in a sense. We were jokingly calling it pleading gate, right? And I think, the more this happens, right, the more this happens, it makes me think it is almost pleading gate.
Mr. Patel: Yeah. And as a former national security prosecutor and former federal public defender who has tried about 60 jury cases to verdict in state and federal court, I’ve had some experience with pleadings and pleading gate. But what I’ve said all along is I think the defense in this case, in the Sussmann case, has relied on the disinformation we were talking about by the mainstream media to try their case in the public sphere. That was the strategy they took from John. They said our client is innocent and we’re going to prove it by having the mainstream media report on how far John Durham is overreaching.
But they went one step further, which I thought was their critical error from the beginning. They went to the judge and they filed a pleading for the world to see that said the case should be dismissed. John Durham doesn’t have enough evidence to indict our client. And this entire prosecution is basically malicious and based on fake news, fake evidence.
Boy, were they wrong. They expensed their rounds, and now John Durham, you have seen come in, responding to every one of those matters along the way. And that’s what I want our audience to take pause on as a lot of people aren’t in this world. As a federal prosecutor, you don’t go out there and just issue pleading, after pleading, after pleading before you get to trial. You satisfy your discovery obligations. You make sure due process is satisfied. You give them evidence and discovery and exculpatory information if it exists and all like that. But you don’t go out there and try your case in the public. And John Durham’s a 30-year career prosecutor, U.S. Attorney for Democrat and Republican Administration. He didn’t. People were complaining. Why aren’t we hearing more from John Durham?
Well, because now we know why. He was working on this large scale criminal enterprise joint venture conspiracy that he’s finally outlined to the public, but he wouldn’t even do it offensively, right? Sussmann’s guys came in and issued pleading, after pleading, after pleading. And John Durham said, okay, you ask for this information and you and I, Jan, have been reporting on this information ever since.
It’s good to educate the public that way. But I think it’s unique because that’s not normally how these types of big national security, big media press cases tend to go. As a prosecutor, you want to be quiet, but the defense forced their hand on it. They said we’re going to take this strategic position and they have massively miscalculated. And it has basically convicted their client in a court of public opinion.
Mr. Jekielek: One of the things that the defense disclosed to us, right, is that Durham has issued a series of trial subpoenas actually, for example, to the Clinton campaign and others. Again, there’s all this information that the defense is also giving us.
Mr. Patel: Yeah, it’s fascinating because the defense disclosed to us that grand jury subpoenas were issued to the likes of Fusion GPS more than a year ago. Grand jury subpoenas, as I’ve told you, are confidential. The issuance of them is confidential. The material that’s received in response to those is also confidential. So we’ve learned quite a lot in trial subpoenas real quick. Look, I’ll be interested to see John Durham’s list of witnesses for the actual trial.
These trial subpoenas that he’s filed recently basically say, judge, because they raised attorney-client privilege and work product protections I, John Durham, now have to call the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC campaign and to rebut that. It’s actually a pre-trial move because we’re still talking about motion in limine, motions before trial begins. And so we call them trial subpoenas, but I don’t know that those guys will end up testifying at the trial.
Mr. Jekielek: So let’s talk about Durham’s reply to all these filings. This is the first of the documents we’ll look at today. Why don’t we just dive right in.
Mr. Patel: Yes. So procedurally basically, as we outlined just a bit ago, all these people came in in the Sussmann case who weren’t a part of the Sussmann case, they weren’t defendants, but they came in voluntarily and asked the court, I have something to say, I, Fusion GPS, I, Marc Elias, I, Podesta, I, Mook, I, Tech Executive-1, Rodney Joffe, and the campaign, the Hillary Clinton campaign, we’ve got something to say. So John Durham said, continuing on in the fashion that we were outlining, he said, well, let me respond. So John Durham issued a collective response brief to all these pleadings that the defense and their friends issued.
The core of it is, they, the defense and their friends, through all these pleadings, are collectively saying, “Judge, it’s attorney-client privilege information and work product information. And John Durham and the United States government can’t have it, and here’s why.” And John Durham says, “Well, since you raised that, let’s talk about attorney-client privilege.” And in his first paragraph in the pleading, I think, he basically destroys their battleship.
Mr. Jekielek: So let me read what I think you’re talking about here. Durham says, “Rights, indeed. The purported privilege holders who have intervened to do so in a case in which the defendant is alleged to have denied representing any client, when he brought the Russia bank one allegations to the FBI,” that’s, of course, Alfa-Bank.
Mr. Patel: That’s the case. The defense in this case, Michael Sussmann and his cohorts, through all these pleadings have come in and said, “Judge, attorney-client privilege, attorney-client privilege for Perkins Coie, for Future GPS, for Marc Elias, for Podesta, for Mook, for the Tech Executive, all in relation to the Alfa-Bank server.” That’s what the Russia bank one thing is. And John Durham’s like, “Wait a second. You can’t have it both ways. Did you take that information to the General Counsel of the FBI on the behest of a client or didn’t you?
Remember Michael Sussmann is charged with lying about his attorney-client relationship to the General Counsel of the FBI when he presented the Alfa-Bank server information. I hope our viewers can appreciate the complete hypocrisy of this position. And John Durham has, in one sentence, I think nuked the entire flurry of defense friends and defense pleadings that we’ve talked about. He’s basically saying, wait, so your defense is you didn’t say that, but now you’re claiming attorney-client privilege? But I thought you didn’t have a client at the time that you made the representation.
So you see the conundrum that the defense has boxed him into and John Durham’s called him out on it. So they can’t both be true, which means he’s basically guilty. It’s pretty fascinating. And he has also eviscerated the attorney-client privilege set up that these guys have tried to muscle in through a flurry of pleadings. And that’s what they’re doing. They’re collectively coming together and reporting in the media and saying, look at us, monsters of the Democratic institution of mainstream media, the Democratic party, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the biggest lawyers on the Democratic side, they’re all coming in saying nothing to see here, attorney-client privilege. They just lost.
Mr. Jekielek: So then, what is this whole, the element of what the work product?
Mr. Patel: Okay. Yeah. No. We should draw a distinction between the two. So they, the defense, are putting them together. They’re saying there’s an attorney client privilege, plus a work product privilege. We’ve just talked about the attorney-client privilege. And if you want a deeper dive into the attorney-client privilege, watch last week’s episode.
But work product, what does that mean? So lawyers can go out and hire people, companies, groups, because lawyers aren’t experts in really anything. They’re supposed to funnel all the information in and represent their client. So what they’re claiming now in this case, and Fusion GPS is a perfect example, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, the guys that ran Fusion GPS, and those names will come up, come up later in the show when we talk about the emails that John Durham put out.
So what they’re saying is if attorney-client privilege doesn’t necessarily protect it, withhold the information, work product definitely does. We, and I’m using Fusion GPS as an example, Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie went out and got a relationship. Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS for the specific purpose of providing information to Fusion, excuse me, to Perkins Coie in, and here’s the key word, in anticipation of litigation.
And what that means is Perkins Coie is out there trying to say we didn’t have the expertise that Fusion GPS had in going out there and, I call it, they were basically collecting hot garbage, but they … and we talked about last week again why they were all of a sudden now no longer opposition research collectors, but something else.
And the reason they’re now arguing something else is the work product exception. They’re saying John Durham’s wrong. We are not opposition research guys. We were hired by Perkins Coie, which is true. They were hired by Perkins Coie. I think they got paid 10 plus million dollars. And then they went out and hired Christopher Steele for the Steele dossier, so all of that funneled back in.
But what Fusion GPS and company and Sussmann are now saying it’s all work product. We specifically hired them not as opposition research guys, but we, Perkins Coie, on behalf of our client, the Clinton Campaign, thought that there would be a flurry of defamation lawsuits because of what Donald Trump at the time was saying. So we just wanted to be prepared in anticipation of litigation. It’s too cute by half. It completely fails because what does John Durham do? He does what he always does. He completely destroys them with their own work.
Mr. Jekielek: So a number of us, you and I included, have been looking through this dump of emails that essentially is basically Fusion GPS pitching all of these, what they would call work product in this case. And Durham and the pleading summarizes some examples of this.
Mr. Patel: So what John Durham brilliantly does is say, okay, you, Fusion GPS are saying you are not opposition research. You did all of this work in anticipation of litigation, but you emailed the reporters at “Slate Magazine” your entire findings. Then you gave it to the “Wall Street Journal,” then you called Yahoo News, then you shared your findings with Christopher Steele and he shared his findings with you, and he gave it to three other media outlets.
How is that work product information related to something that’s anticipation litigation when all you wanted to do was disseminate it as far and as wide as you possibly could knowing the information was unsubstantiated and unverified? So he, again, just puts a missile through their argument. And then he says, “If that’s not enough, Judge, let’s circle back to the attorney-client privilege thing one more time.” The attorney-client privilege only exists if it is communication between an attorney and the client.
The second you take that information and give it to the mainstream media, the Yahoo News, the Slate Magazine guys, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, CNN, and everyone else, attorney-client privilege is gone. So you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it’s attorney-client privilege, and then sneakily have it sent out to six different media outlets because you want that story, that narrative that you got paid 10 million to do, out in the mainstream media.
So Fusion GPS is completely crushed. And as I’ve always said from the beginning, I think Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson should be looked at for, A, lying to Congress when I took their depositions about their work in this case. And I also think they’re going to be brought out as co-conspirators to Michael Sussmann’s large scale criminal enterprise that we’ve talked about.
And oh, by the way, I remind our audience. We haven’t talked about the Igor Danchenko indictment in quite some time. It’s still alive, folks. We’ll get to that in a future episode. But this is the guy who was Steele’s source. And I remind you all the same players we’re talking about today, Fusion GPS, Steele, Mook, Podesta, Sullivan, the Clinton Campaign, all these guys had separate ties, I believe, to the other indictment in the Durham cases, so very interesting stuff to come.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s mind blowing when you think about it because all of this stuff we’ve been talking about this last while is just this last-
Mr. Patel: Just one case.
Mr. Jekielek: Yeah. And we have a lot of reason to believe that there will be more indictments, right, in the future.
Mr. Patel: Yeah.
Mr. Jekielek: So before we actually look at these emails in a little more detail, why don’t we actually look at the judge’s order in response because that’s actually quite interesting, right? There’s a lot of people that want the judge to accept everything that Durham offered.
Mr. Patel: Yeah. Let’s just quickly go there. It’s not a lengthy order, but what the judge basically does, it says granted in part, denied in part. Not unusual for pretrial motions. He basically, and there’s, let me use the example of this one thing, one of the things John Durham wanted to use is hire an expert witness for the government to come in and talk about some of this pretty technical stuff, the data point stuff that is in the pleadings about the connection at the White House that the Tech Executive, Rodney Joffe, he got to spy or mine data out of the White House. And what John Durham’s saying is, look, this is pretty complicated. I can’t just tell the jury about this. I need an expert. And the defense said, no, no, no, we don’t need, we have to preclude the expert from testifying. It’s not helpful.
The judge was like, I disagree. The expert, as long as he’s qualified appropriately as an expert, can come in and help the jury understand what all this technical information means because you, the defense, are saying that the Tech Exec-1 and Rodney Joffe and company didn’t do anything wrong. So that’s just an example of it. He’s also keenly what I, and I believe he’s done this correctly.
Many judges sometimes fall into the trap of pre-trying the case in pretrial motions. And so what he’s done is saying, well, you guys have filed a ton of motions, but I, the judge, have to hear the case. I have yet to hear the case. I have yet to hear the government’s evidence. I have yet to hear if you, the defense, does what we can opening the door. And we can talk about that later.
But so he said, I’m going to agree in part, deny a couple of small things, and then hold fire on deciding basically the bulk of the pleadings. He’s going to basically say, I’m going to take it as it comes. I’m going to see the government’s case and I’m going to talk about 404(b) information, which we talked about in the past, whether or not that’ll come in.
He’s leaning towards letting that in because it shows motive, intent, and all that other stuff. And then he’s waiting to see if Michael Sussmann takes the witness stand, or if Michael Sussmann’s colleagues take the witness stand and they open the door. And by that, I mean, sometimes the rules of evidence allow the government to put in more evidence if the defendant comes in and offensively says I didn’t do this because of X Y and Z.
Once he does that, a whole slew of statements can come in from other witnesses that were previously not allowed to come in under the rules of evidence. So he’s like, I got to wait to see what’s going down. So that’s the ruling. And I want the audience to be clear that it’s a very small ruling. And I think it’s prudent because he’s allowing himself to wait to see the trial unfold and hear the actual evidence himself. And that’s the right move.
Mr. Jekielek: So, I couldn’t help but think to myself when I was looking through this, that things aren’t looking very good for Joffe, right? Why, why …
Mr. Patel: They’re not.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, so explain to me why you’re laughing.
Mr. Patel: I mean, for a number of reasons we’ve talked about in the past. Rodney Joffe has come in here, hired by this network of individuals or, as we’ll get into in a second, he’s also trying to prop up this attorney-client privilege position that we’re talking about. And John Durham eviscerates that with, I think, something you’re going to bring up shortly, but he’s got problems for a lot of reasons. He was responsible for the Alfa-Bank server information that was totally made up. His team told him we can’t find a connection between Trump and Russia. He goes back to his team and orders them to basically find a narrative and an inference. And those are quotes that John Durham uses throughout his pleadings against Tech Executive, Rodney Joffe.
And so now, what has happened is the defense, if you remember, tried to immunize us, if that’s even the thing. They were so desperate that they filed a pleading to say, please immunize Rodney Joffe. It’s a legal impossibility. Only the government and the Department of Justice can grant immunity to a witness. The judge can’t, the defense can’t, the Congress can’t, no one else can. And so that just shows to me how scared they are of the position they’ve put Rodney or Rodney Joffe has gotten himself into. And so for a number of reasons, not to mention that John Durham put in his pleading that Rodney Joffe is still a subject of his ongoing criminal investigation, to me, that was the most revealing part of John Durham’s recent, let’s call it five, 10 pleadings.
So he’s got a lot to worry about. And now they’re saying, Rodney Joffe might come in and plead the fifth, which is his right to do as a witness. He can come in and just say, no, I’m going to plead the fifth, the right against self-incrimination, and I’m not going to assist the government. But he can’t plead the fifth and then proactively go in there at the same time and claim attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Jekielek: Okay. Explain that.
Mr. Patel: So the right under the fifth amendment, the privilege against self-incrimination, is right everybody has including witnesses in criminal prosecution. So they can either come in or what happens is not like you see in movies. They don’t come in and take the fifth and pound the desk. They tell the judge in advance and he doesn’t, he or she doesn’t testify. But they can’t proactively assert these claims of attorney-client privilege, work product exception privilege, that I was in this big universe with the defense helping them unravel this massive conspiracy that Trump was in with Russia. You can’t argue those things and come in as a witness for those guys and claim the fifth. It’s one or the other.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s read Durham’s own words about Joffe here, okay? The Tech Executive-1 ignores the critical and dispositive fact that Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS to assist HFA and the DNC. Not Tech Executive-1, not Joffe. Indeed, Tech Executive-1, Joffe, did not pay at all for Fusion GPS’s services and Perkins Coie did not charge Tech Executive-1 Joffe for such services.
Mr. Patel: Again, like that sentence we refer to at the top of the show, this is probably number two in John Durham pleading that stands out the most to me. He’s basically proven through their own relationships that Rodney Joffe doesn’t have an attorney-client relationship with Perkins Coie or Fusion GPS. So there can be no attorney-client privilege or work product privilege that we talked about with Fusion GPS. So now, what are you standing on is basically what John Durham is saying, what’s your next move? Because I’m going to still subpoena you and you can claim the fifth, or you can continue down this road. But you have to make a decision.
Mr. Jekielek: But you can’t support basically the defense’s position if you take the fifth.
Mr. Patel: Well, no, no, no. That’s not what he’s saying. He’s just saying your claim is meritless, the one that you’re making about attorney-client privilege, and here’s why. And it’s outlined in that sentence. Your claim that you’re making that you are providing information to Fusion GPS’s work product information for them to give to Perkins Coie in anticipation of litigation is meritless because you don’t have the facts to support it because those relationships didn’t actually exist. And that’s what he’s done. So he’s forced Rodney Joffe’s hand, I believe, to say it’s time to pick your fork in the road. It’s A or B. There isn’t a C.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump into this email dump, it’s incredible. And before we do it, what happened? Because there was a mistake, it was something that was supposed to be private, it was filed publicly. Then it got pulled back, but not before a few people downloaded it and made it public.
Mr. Patel: Yes, so look, as a guy who’s looked, all this stuff has aged over time. And we used to do paper filings, and handwritten filings, and stapled pleadings, and walk them down to the courthouse znc submit them. So we have transitioned to computerized systems and we call them electronic filings, right? They make for greater ease of access, you can respond quicker, and the public can have access to the system, which is the whole point of it. Right?
Sometimes though there’s sensitive information. There’s people, what we call PII, Personally Identifiable Information, that you just want the names of those people and the phone numbers and emails to stay out of the public sphere for the time being because you don’t want them attacked, or you don’t want them paying, or you don’t want the media chasing them down, things like that. And what happens is, in these cases, you file things under seal.
And that doesn’t mean it’s classified. It just means there’s maybe some PII information you want to keep out of the public sphere for now, but you don’t keep it from the court and the other party. They get to see everything. What happens is, this is my belief, I have no inside information, but I used to do these types of pleadings all the time. And you file them electronically.
But in the case of pleadings under seal, you have to physically go down to the courthouse and give them to the clerk of the court. And the clerk of the court has to process that pleading appropriately and then put it in the electronic system appropriately with the redacted version. Because, remember, the prosecutor, in this case, John Durham, has to submit both versions because the judge has to see everything and the defense has to see everything, but not the public.
So there was a slip up somewhere in that the redacted version should have been the one uploaded to the electronic system, the public facing system, but the unredacted version was. So I don’t think anyone’s at fault. I don’t even think the defense can claim that John Durham did this intentionally. Certainly not. His record proves it. And I don’t really blame the clerk of the court if it was them or anything like that. The stuff gets pretty complicated sometimes. But it allows us to see some of these emails that I guess we’re going to talk about.
Mr. Jekielek: So something that comes through in these emails and it is almost, it’s painful to read through for me, is watching Carter Page and Sergei Millian, people who have been, I think, serially exonerated now from any wrongdoing being almost looks to me like they’re being framed up in the process.
Mr. Patel: Yeah. So we have to remind the folks that the emails you and I are now talking about are emails from 2016 when Russiagate was getting off the ground, when Fusion GPS was hired by Perkins Coie, when they went and got Christopher Steele to write the Steele dossier. And then they started talking to the media. We proved that in the Nunes Memo, which highlights some of the misinformation that they, Fusion GPS, were putting out to the public by talking to the media directly themselves. And that’s what these emails show.
It’s the emails between the Fusion GPSs of the world and the mainstream media giving direction to the media, and the media allowing Fusion GPS and company to edit their articles about Russiagate before they go out. Basically, handing off any sentiment of journalistic integrity and saying we need to carry your political narrative, so you tell us what to write. When was the last time that was acceptable in journalism? It wasn’t before Russiagate happened. And all of a sudden it became how journalist mainstream media turned to get their signal steers from likes of Fusion GPS.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, and so there’s a bit of that. But then there’s just a lot of basically the attempt to sell the story, right? There’s one email that I’m going to, I’m looking at in particular. There Glenn Simpson is pitching it to a Washington Post journalist. And what’s coming back is, that I’ll quote here, that Page met with Sechin or Ivanov. He says it’s BS, impossible, said one of the Moscow sources. These are the answers that Simpson’s getting.
Mr. Patel: So again, I got to highlight. This is absolutely critical. It’s 2016. And we discussed this at length in the Nunes Memo because this, to me, as a former federal prosecutor who used the FISA court process, which is that’s where this information ultimately went to get a warrant on Carter Page and the Trump campaign, you have to make it out as a prosecutor before the FISA court, the FISC.
You have to show that individual, in this case the target, Carter Page, to be an agent of a foreign power. That’s a must, otherwise, you cannot get a FISA on an American citizen. And what does the Steele dossier allege? I remind our audience. It says after this meeting that Carter Page allegedly had, he, Carter Page, agreed with then, the Russians, that he would provide access in the Trump Administration. And they, the Russians, would give Carter Page 15 percent of Rosneft. That’s 14 billion dollars. That’s a lot of money.
So I said to Devin at the time, I said, look, if this is true, this is the area we need to critically focus on because if it’s true, then the FISA warrant was righteous because he, Carter Page, is shown to be an agent of a foreign power and he’s not supposed to be doing that as an American citizen and they should surveil. But as we quickly unfolded and found out, the meeting never occurred. Obviously, there was no contemplation from the Russian that we showed to give him 10 billion, 12, 14 B, with a billion dollars, of a Russian company. So he wasn’t an agent of a foreign power.
But these emails show that Fusion GPS and their opposition research, and their access to the mainstream media, and I think the likes of Frank Foer and Hosenball, and these other guys that are shown in this email slew to allow them to craft and edit the media’s position on this totally wrecked journalistic credibility because it allowed them to report for years, and half the world, if not more of the world, believed that Carter Page had this meeting, that he was an agent of a foreign power, that the FISA court was appropriately used, and that Donald Trump was conspiring and colluding with the Russians.
All of which we proved to be false and outlined in our Nunes Memo. But these emails, again, what John Durham is doing is saying I’m not going to write a summary. I’m going to show you your own work. And now we come full circle, right? We talked about disinformation at the top. This is them putting disinformation front and center for years in the mainstream media and seating it repeatedly.
And then taking that disinformation to the FBI and intentionally getting the FBI to lie to a federal court to get a surveillance warrant on an American citizen. This then, to close the circle, shows how Fusion GPS was hired to perform opposition research to dump into the media and the FBI, and Christopher Steele, and utilize Christopher Steele to do the same, and feed that information, not just to the media, but back to the Hillary Clinton campaign and their cronies, who they were hired by through Perkins Coie and Michael Sussmann, the indicted defendant in this case, and completes the circle, and totally destroys any claim that Fusion GPS did all of this work in anticipation of litigation or under an attorney-client privilege because they were doling this out to any journalist that were listened and they were editing their articles so they, Fusion GPS and the Clinton world, the Clinton empire, could have their political false narrative out there for years and years and years.
And now they’ve gotten caught. We caught them. We proved it in the Russiagate HPSCI report and the Nunes memo. And, for me, it’s what, five years down the road that the rest of the world is now knowing. Okay. It’s not a me thing or an I thing, but it’s so many people were misled for so long, not just in America, but around the world. If you recall things like you had the Brandons and the Clappers of the world saying we are going to destroy our relationships with our foreign powers. No. You destroyed our relationship with the foreign powers by lying to the American public and the world about this total criminal conspiracy that you allowed to have occur on your watch.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s remind everyone just briefly the date and the contents of the Nunes Memo.
Mr. Patel: Yes. So the date, I believe, as the guy who was a primary author behind the Nunes Memo, I like to call it the Kash Memo. Don’t tell anyone. I think we finished it up in January of ’18. The date’s on the memo, but I believe it was published right around very early February. So we put that out there. And if you remember the mainstream media reaction to it. Devin and Kash Patel false narrative, intentionally lies to the American public and the world. These guys are disgusting human beings for saying that the DOJ could be corrupt, that Adam Schiff was lying to the world that, Bruce Ohr was involved with Fusion GPS, and that Christopher Steele’s motivations and money pipeline for creating the Steele dossier was hidden from the FISA court, and so much more.
But we did the same thing in that memo that John Durham’s doing. We took the information that was from the FBI, that was from Fusion GPS, that was from their own documentation and their own statements, and we just put it in the Nunes Memo basically word for word. And we said, go ahead, refute it. And it stood the test of time.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s also a reminder that these things do take time and you keep reminding folks and me frankly about that, that to do proper good investigative work, whether it’s journalism, whether its legal work, whether its investigative work under [inaudible 00:37:34] it takes time. It has to be thorough. And if when it is, you can actually see its impact.
Mr. Patel: It does. I don’t know. I think there’s still a lot of road in the race to run when it comes to John Durham and to remind our audience the levers in Congress versus the levers at the Department of Justice are very different. The authorities are very different. John Durham has much more authority. And what you get is coverage of a case that can’t be ignored because it’s under a federal indictment. And I think that’s the power of it.
I think Epoch Times has been covering it correctly the entire time. And actually Epoch Times is one of my favorite pictorials of all time with the Spygate flow chart that they put out. And I think you guys put it out three years ago, maybe something like that, and our audience must take a look at this. I think we’ll put it up on the screen for them. But it’s just truly the best outline I’ve ever seen of Russiagate.
You guys have always just reported the hard facts, especially on China. But when you guys picked up Russiagate, Devin and I took notice, and we were like, okay, these guys actually have great reporters who are doing this right. And I think your reporting has been vindicated because I’ve only been with you guys for, I don’t know, is it a year yet? Maybe not. But more to come from you and I. I picked up a hard copy of the print edition of the Epoch Times and I just want to read to the audience the timely headline on the front page of the Epoch Times—Durham Probe CIA knew early on data tying Trump to Russia was fake. Look at that. Who would’ve thought? And I think that encompasses what we’ve been talking about.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, and it’s also, I can’t help, but think though that I think the judge isn’t quite sure whether that’s admissible into the case. Am I-
Mr. Patel: Well, it’s one of those things that he said, he’s like, I think it can come in. Let me see what the evidence shakes out at trial.
Mr. Jekielek: I see.
Mr. Patel: But he hasn’t precluded it in its entirety. But what he did say was, and this is the key piece of information, he said at the very least, I will allow the information to come in that supports what happened to the FBI. That the FBI found, came to the conclusion that it was unsubstantiated and unverified and whatnot. And the CIA came to that same conclusion. The judge definitively said in his order, great point, that he will, at the very least, allow that statement to come in because it shows Michael Sussmann’s state of mind when he was in the meeting with the FBI because Michael Sussmann was the one that gave this information to the CIA. And then they came to this conclusion, which is so greatly reported by Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke here on the cover page.
Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned the front page. I want to remind all our viewers that the Epoch Times actually has a print edition that is incredibly popular across the U.S. And you mentioned our China reporting. On the front page, we have an article, right at the top, “Beijing’s Long Arm Targets Shen Yun Artists in Upstate New York”. Now, these are the kinds of stories that you rarely hear about, the Chinese communist party’s long arm reaching into local American politics, affecting both Chinese Americans and Americans alike. I want to really highlight the value of these. Thanks for bringing this up. And so I think it’s time for our shout-out now
Mr. Patel: It is. So we gave a slight shout-out to the Epoch Times Print Edition, but our shout-out for the week goes to Donna Macy. Thanks so much for your wonderful comment on the board at Kash’s Corner. Jan and I look forward to reading those comments every week. And we encourage you guys not just to post comments on our board, but if you like the show and want to hear more behind the scenes, more details about it, follow what Jan and I are saying on Truth Social. I’m over at @Kash and Jan’s at @JanJekielek. We go weekly, daily commentary about all things Durham and national security. So we hope to see you on both Epoch Times and on Truth Social. And we’ll see you next week on Kash’s Corner.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Download our new EpochTV ebook for free.
Follow EpochTV on social media: