Why Did Pelosi Reject Trump's Troop Offer on J6? With Kash Patel
Charlie welcomes Kash Patel, former federal prosecutor and chief of staff to the Acting United States Secretary of Defense under President Donald Trump, to discuss the events surrounding January 6th. Kash brings forth evidence that President Trump did in fact authorize the use of 10-20 thousand national guardsmen ahead of January 6th only to have that offer rejected by DC Mayor Muriel Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The two also detail the politicization of the national security apparatus permeating the daily lives of normal Americans including updates on John Durham's ongoing investigation.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Charlie and Kash Intro00:02:51
Hey, everybody.
Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, Kash Patel joins us.
Update on John Durham.
We talk about the expansion of the United States security apparatus and why did Nancy Pelosi deny troop support assistance on January 6th or January 5th, I should say.
Kash Patel is here.
His website is fightwithcash.com.
Email me directly, freedom at charliekirk.com.
And if you want to support our show, you can do so at charliekirk.com/slash support.
If our show has helped you, if you've been blessed by our show in any way whatsoever, go to charliekirk.com/slash support and please consider getting behind us.
We'd be greatly appreciative.
Get involved with Turning Point USA, where we're playing offense with a sense of urgency to win the American culture war, starting high school chapters, starting college chapters, communicating the truths of the United States Constitution and American history to future generations.
Tpusa.com.
Tpusa.com buckle up everybody, here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know.
We are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House.
Folks, I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here, brought to you by the loan experts I trust, Andrew and Toddl at Sierra Pacific mortgage at Andrewandtodd.com.
For the record, the new Matrix is terrible and the Wachowski brothers are now transgender.
The whole thing's messed up.
Wachowski Wachowski Wannakata Tubakowski Waja Dubakowski, whatever they are trans.
Now the new Matrix?
No good, I tried.
I was so excited.
Erica will tell you I was I.
I, I planned my whole day around it.
I got some sort of subscription to HBO max for it, whatever the heck that is, and it was awful.
I mean just everything about it.
And if you, if you go a level deeper, there's a great article on the American mind by Spencer, Clavin Clavin, who's really good.
He agreed it was terrible.
And, by the way, I say this as someone who is a serious Matrix fan of One Two, Three that grew up with.
The Matrix is so good and the first the Matrix starts.
I can't remember the first scene actually, but the actually I yeah, I don't want to spoil it.
You know what.
Honestly, if I spoil it for you it doesn't really matter because it's not that good.
But the whole thing is really kind of this idea that you shouldn't be stuck in a binary reality if you go into the dialogue and all this.
National Guard Speculation00:09:10
Why is that?
Well, it's because you got two men that are trying to cope with their serious mental problems because they're women.
Now, that's basically what the whole movie is about, even though it comes down to a binary choice, either take the blue pill or the red pill.
Can't, can't escape that.
I will say the best part of the movie and I I am a fan of, Of His, even though he's a left-winger, Neil Patrick Harris, he's a phenomenal actor.
I wish he wasn't.
I wish he was bad.
He's actually rather entertaining.
Okay, enough of that.
I had to subject Kash Patel to my Epert and Roper.
Those are the two guys that used it for my movie analysis.
All right, Cash, how are you doing, man?
I'm great, Charlie.
That was a pretty good movie review.
I don't need those Epert and Roper guys anymore.
There you go.
Thank you.
And I want to just first say you're a great American and it's fightwithcash.com.
Is that right?
Yeah, with a K.
Yeah, man.
Cool.
Very good.
Fightforcash.com with a K.
Okay.
Cash, so you went on Sean Hannity's program, the great Sean Hannity, last week, I'm not mistaken, and broke some serious news.
Please share it with our audience.
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Look, we've been trying to get part of service is to go out and tell the American people what you did when you were serving, especially if the actions of you and your and your affiliates were called into question.
So what do we do?
We've been trying for a year to get out the facts that President Trump authorized 10 to 20,000 National Guards men and women two days before the January 6th First Amendment movements across the country.
And why is that important to me as a former chief of staff for the Department of Defense?
Because we, the military, cannot move National Guard troops without a presidential authorization.
Step one.
Step two, the law mandates, even if you get that authorization, unless there is a request by the mayor, by a federal law enforcement agency, i.e., the Capitol Police, that they need assistance from the National Guard, even though you have a presidential authorization, you cannot, by law, employ and deploy the National Guard.
And after we got it from President Trump on January, I think it was the 4th, it was two days before, in the Oval Office with the SECDAF, myself, and the chairman and others.
We went to Mayor Bowser, who controls Washington, D.C. She's essentially the governor.
She has a right to make that request.
We went to the head of the Capitol Police and said, Look, we don't have the line on the domestic intelligence.
It's not our job.
But the president gave us authorization for 10 to 20,000 troops.
Do you want any?
Do you want more than the 250 that we've already given you and that you requested?
And Mayor Bowser, in writing, and that letter is available in the DOD Inspector General report that was created by Biden's DOD, flat out refused, said, absolutely not.
We don't want any more.
The United States Capitol Police told the Secretary of the Army, who represents the National Guard posture: no, we also don't want your National Guard here on the Capitol grounds or around it or assisting in traffic matters, which is basically their job.
And so January 6th happens, and then what happens?
The world saw it.
And then everybody in Capitol Hill started calling us and saying, where's the uniformed military?
Well, the National Guard, for most of your audience who might not know, is they're doctors, they're lawyers, they're teachers, they're cops.
They're people in our communities.
They're not everyday uniformed officers.
We have to go get them, pull them out of their daily lives, move them into the region, employ them, deploy them, train them up, kit them out, give them authorizations and instructions, and then move them out.
People think that like we have these guys sitting around on buses to just deploy at the drop of a hat.
And we moved expeditiously as the Biden DOD found out.
The Biden Inspector General, excuse me, found the Trump administration did not delay or obstruct its National Guard response on January 6th, which to me says it all.
And so where does the Nancy Pelosi kind of component play into this, right?
So can you just unpack?
Because there's this narrative that Pelosi rejected potential assistance, Bowser.
And I mean, so can you just kind of map out all the different dynamics here?
Sure, sure.
So we're going to, we're talking about D.C. Let's just talk about Washington, D.C.
So if we were talking about New York, we'd go to the governor of New York.
But since we're talking about Washington, D.C., and there is no governor, there's only a mayor, it's Mayor Bowser who runs the show and whose request we need for National Guard under the law.
Separately, we are talking about the United States Capitol, which is a function that's supposed to be protected by law enforcement, but sometimes law enforcement needs assistance.
So they, the United States Capitol Police, whose chain of command reports to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would have had conversations that we had with them and saying, DOD came over to us.
They've said we've got 10 to 20,000 National Guards, but we, the Capitol Police, have to make a request.
Does our chain of command support that?
And what we were told in writing and in direct communications with the Secretary of the Army and others, no, we don't.
So we could not employ these folks ahead of time as we had asked them to do so.
Yeah, I mean, it's an extraordinary revelation.
And it does beg the question, and this is speculation.
Do you think they wanted there to be a thin force that day?
I mean, that's the question, right?
Did they want it to be intentionally sparringly staffed?
Yeah, I mean, look, here's the thing about that.
You know, unfortunately, there probably are one or two folks out there who would want some kind of criminality, some kind of riot to occur, and, you know, unfortunately, some tragic incidents such as deaths to occur.
And it could have all been prevented.
How?
You don't even need the military.
It's a law enforcement function.
Chris Ray and the FBI and the Department of Justice, who are the lead government agency for the whole January 6th period, could have put a thousand FBI agents around the Capitol.
You know what else they could have done?
You've seen it in DC, the no-climb black fence that you can't get over.
They could have fortified the place and built a perimeter fencing around the United States Capitol, and then no one could have gotten anywhere.
They didn't do either.
I, at the Department of Defense, went out in the middle of the night, bought no climb fencing, and had my National Guard put it up on the night of January 6th because no one else would step up to the plate and do it.
So these are things that they could have proactively done.
And this is the best example I think that you and so many others in America can relate to.
The Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks around the United States Capitol had been boarded up for a week.
Are we to believe that they had better intelligence than the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
It's just ludicrous.
And yeah, and it really does beg the question, was this an intelligence failure or an intelligence operation?
And, you know, there's increasing evidence with Ray Epps and the revolver.news stories and the lack of the justice towards the pipe bomb, you know, that there's this is this is an unfolding drama that the other side is telling a completely different story intentionally.
And your firsthand perspective from the Department of Defense is critical to this because President Trump's instincts were, no, let's deploy as many people as we possibly can to protect the entire city of D.C.
I mean, and I've been, I'm into the Capitol many times, so have you.
I was shocked that on that day it was so thinly staffed.
Not to mention the people that were staffed there, they were propelling flash bang grenades into the crowds, almost trying to provoke them and agitate them.
It's very suspicious.
I believe in being healthy and staying active, whether that means working out or playing sports, the last thing I want to be held back in any way, I'm sure you feel the same.
So when aches and pains start to creep in, what do you have to keep them from taking you out of the game?
Charlie Kirk here, if you haven't tried Relief Factor, I highly recommend that you do.
I've seen firsthand what it can do, and I've heard even more stories from satisfied customers about how Relief Factor helped their body fight off aches and pains.
That seems a worthy try to me.
About 70% of the more than half a million people who have tried Relief Factor end up ordering more, and that's because it works for them the way it worked for me.
Isn't it time for you to get out of pain?
ReliefFactor at relieffactor.com is your first step to becoming pain-free and just might be to order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of only $19.95.
Just go to relieffactor.com or call 800 for Relief to find out more about this offer.
Feel the difference.
100% drug-free supplement, relieffactor.com.
That is relieffactor.com, discounted to the price of only $19.95, or call 800 for Relief to find out more about this offer.
Feel the difference, relieffactor.com.
Cash, you've worked all throughout our government in a variety of different roles.
You were a partner with Devin Nunez in uncovering the unmasking.
And later, I want to ask you about our friend Durham and how that entire project is progressing, in your opinion.
Restoring Faith in Security00:03:48
But I just want to ask you kind of more broadly: can you talk about the threat that the United States security state, the whole security apparatus poses against either conservative Americans or Christian Americans, or what would be considered disagreeable political opinions, and tie that together with what you uncovered in the Russia investigation with Donald Trump and how they entrap Donald Trump and they use the FISA court surveillance.
Talk a little bit about that.
Yeah, that's a great question.
Look, it's all interconnected, as you were alluding to right there.
Basically, the sum and substance is what we are seeing is the politicization of the national security apparatus in the United States.
The one apparatus that is supposed to be apolitical, the one apparatus when Donald Trump came in and said to me when I was running his counterterrorism programs or was his deputy director of national intelligence or later over at DOD, was this is what we're doing.
We're going to end the forever wars.
We're going to wipe out Al-Qaeda senior leadership.
We're going to kill the emirs of ISIS, take out Soleimani, return American hostages, seal our southern border, prohibit Chinese fentanyl and opiates from pouring in and killing our youth.
These are things that are apolitical and that you would think all Americans would want, especially Americans who have children, would want for their youth.
And when Donald Trump got elected, that narrative got blown up.
And it started with the Russiagate narrative, which I was fortunate enough to be the chief investigator on for Chairman Nunes.
We wrote the Nunes memo.
We wrote a report and we basically showed the largest criminal enterprise perpetuated by the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign and intentionally faulty actors in Andrew McCabe and James Comey and Clapper over in the FBI and IC to go to an intelligence court and say lying to an intelligence court just to surveil their opponent because they didn't like the guy.
That trend, unfortunately, has tragically continued the politicization of the national security apparatus throughout Donald Trump's presidency and now into Joe Biden's presidency for the next one year that he's been in power.
And it's permeated the domestic aspects of our lives, which I think was one of the points you hit on in talking about January 6th or domestic extremism or looking for white rage in the DOD, all these fictions that don't occur.
But when you have the fake news media perpetuating them, repeating them over and over and over again, people think it's a reality.
And that's terrible for our institutions.
No, it's beyond terrible.
And I say this as someone who I was very young and naive.
I used to kind of be sympathetic and defensive of saying, yeah, we need to give all this power to the federal government to go spy on Al-Qaeda.
It was all a bunch of nonsense.
Like, I'm not libertarian on many things, but my goodness, has Rand Paul won me over on the potential abuses of how FISA could be used to go against political opponents.
There's a lot of different aspects and dynamics of this, please.
You raise a great point.
The fact that so many, and you, who are one of the most dialed-in people in all of America, if not the world, on our national security apparatus and our politics, the fact that you've lost faith shows to me that we have failed you.
That is, the American people have been failed by leadership because of things like RussiaGate and the FISA abuse scandal.
Look, I was a former terrorism prosecutor.
I used FISA process all the time, but we did it the right way.
I prevented guys from blowing up shopping malls in Houston, from blowing up the state capitol in Sacramento.
Those guys are sitting in prison because we used the FISA process appropriately and righteously, but it was destroyed and the faith in our system was destroyed by the James Comey's of the world.
And that juxtaposition is what we need to talk about in depth because the fact that guys like you have lost faith in it, and I think rightly so, because you've been betrayed, we need to restore that faith.
And the only way to do that is we got to put us back in power.
No, I think that that's an important point.
It sobers me a little bit, to be honest, and it calms me down because you just cited a couple examples.
Preventing Terrorist Attacks00:02:27
I'm sure there's dozens of others where that did thwart the bad guys, right?
And that did thwart the people that, you know, were playing games and in the shadows of trying to legitimately harm the American people.
Showing up to a school board meeting, I don't think fits you in the category as Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVay or Eric Rudolph or ISIS or al-Qaeda.
And there is this intentional conflation.
And it does go back to Donald Trump.
They were willing to do it.
And the cooler heads did not prevail within the left where they said, hey, this might get out of hand eventually, you know, calling Donald Trump a KGB agent.
Doesn't matter.
Get rid of him.
He shouldn't have won in the first place.
And you're starting to see the very, very serious ramifications of that.
Look, it's back to school time and you might be feeling the burden of college bills and private tuition expenses.
With home equity at an all-time high and interest rates low, refinancing your house could be a great way to get some cash and pay those bills.
So look, if you want to refinance your house or do anything with a bank, let's just say timeout, right?
We're going to call a timeout two-minute warning, right?
Hands on the shoulders.
We're going to just kind of say, let's take a pause here.
Are you using a bank that hates your values?
It's a very simple question.
Are you using a bank that is at war with your worldview?
Well, if you have refinanced recently with a big bank, you have just given a check, a cashier's check, a wire transfer to Nicole Hannah-Jones, to Stacey Abrams, to Joe Biden, to Chuck Schumer, to Nancy Pelosi.
You see, when you refinance with the big boys, the banks of the Wookesters, you might as well give your hard-earned money to the revolutionaries that are burning down our streets.
You might as well give it to Planned Parenthood.
But if you want to support the good guys, two Christian men that I've got to know very well, they love the Lord.
They love the Bible.
They are great people.
We just hung out in Dallas and we had the best time.
We had a great meal together.
They're terrific.
Andrew Del Rey and Todd Avakian at andrewandTodd.com.
They are with Sierra Pacific Mortgage, and I know them and trust them.
And you should work with them too.
Just go to andrewandod.com and take the 30-second survey to answer a couple questions.
But look, maybe you're a calling person.
You're like, Charlie, I take enough surveys.
Charging by Conduct00:15:09
Fine.
Test me.
Call 888-888-1172 and say, I would like to talk to Andrew and Todd.
Charlie Kirk sent me.
That's 888-888-1172.
AndrewandTodd.com, andrewandtodd.com.
No more Goldman Sachs.
No more JPMorgan Chase.
No more Wells Fargo.
No more financing or refinancing with the banks that hate your values.
Again, I hate to be this tribal about it.
They hate you.
Go to people that love you at andrewandodd.com.
They love the Lord.
They love the country.
Let's support them at andrewandodd.com.
You have a really good perspective here because you just mentioned that you used the FISA court process correctly to go after legitimate bad people and people that wanted to commit massive crimes.
Can you I'm not sure where you're going to land on this.
How important is the distinction, terrorism versus crime?
Because there was a little bit of a controversy last week with that with Senator Ted Cruz, of whom I have a lot of respect for, and he's a friend of mine.
Is it important that term, or is it just kind of, you know, kind of just word games?
Is it important when they start to categorize us as terrorists?
I think it's critically important.
Look, as a former federal prosecutor and a public defender before that, those words have meaning under the federal statutes.
And when the media starts grabbing hold of these terms, and you've seen it with the quote-unquote insurrection, that's a crime tantamount to treason.
Those things have, and the reason you haven't seen this Department of Justice issue any insurrectionist indictments on January 6th is because it was not an insurrection.
But that doesn't stop the media from grabbing onto it.
That's just one example.
You raised another one with the terrorist example.
Look, as a counterterrorism guy, the head of counterterrorism is President Trump.
That word has a meaning.
It's reserved for people who commit crimes against the national security interest of America and its citizens and who kill them and attack us.
Those are terrorists.
Then for the media to go out and hijack that term and say, okay, well, we have domestic, quote-unquote, domestic terrorists in America.
And the domestic terrorists or anyone that supported Donald Trump and or who was around January, the Capitol on January 6th or protesting for the rights of freedom and Second Amendment, what have you.
When you bandy about terms like that, it hurts our national security apparatus immensely.
And that's why I think the distinction is so important.
I'm glad you highlighted it because the words terrorism, domestic terrorism versus criminality or criminal conduct should and are rightfully so separated in the federal statute because the crime and the terrorism aspect of it is so different and so egregious in nature and the punishment is so different that there has to be a distinction.
And that's why Congress made one.
So as a former federal prosecutor, walk us through then all of a sudden.
So they introduce the terrorism kind of trial balloon via the New York Times.
And, you know, we make fun of the New York Times.
They are very important because unfortunately powerful people read the New York Times.
And I think the New York Times and Harvard are the most powerful non-governmental entities outside of Silicon Valley.
And we kind of make fun of them, but they give a lot of credibility to bad ideas, a lot of research to hooligans that don't deserve it.
And the New York Times and trial balloons, the language of it.
And so here I have right here, you know, the New York Times.
I haven't even read it today.
I read it so people don't need to.
Oh, yeah, it's right here.
Panel on riot presses pence for testimony.
Now, they're calling it a riot at times, the New York Times.
They use these interchangeable terms.
CNBC, which used to be a respectable outlet, is calling it an invasion.
So let's just pretend, what would that mean, Cash?
If it was an invasion, would that you could use the Marines?
I mean, what does that even mean?
It means that it means that they're losing the ideals that they ultimately stood up this whole January 6th committee for.
First, it was an insurrection.
And the Biden's DO, Biden's Department of Justice didn't indict anyone for insurrection because it wasn't an insurrection.
So they, what do they do?
They need a new word.
So they need a new word.
What's the new word?
Invasion or the other word you cited.
And that's something that the media will carry on for another six months till we run into the midterm because they don't have anything to run on.
All they have is to run against Trump in January 6th.
They just want new inflammatory terminology that doesn't mean anything under the law.
So they have a massive issue with the insurrectionists because they have a supply and demand problem, right?
So they have no supply of insurrectionists, but they have a demand to find them.
And so that's part of the reason why they've expanded their definition of a terrorist to include moms and dads who show up to school board meetings and complain about their children's curriculum.
The Department of Justice announced today that they have a whole new division dedicated to this.
As a former federal prosecutor, you are in charge of counterterrorism.
Who's going to be overseeing this?
What's to prevent them from using this in a way where they could be infiltrating school board meetings or things like that?
Tragically, I don't think there is one anymore.
And that's why I've lost such confidence as so many Americans have in the leadership cycle at these institutions like DOJ and FBI because they continue to politicize our national security apparatus.
And here's the thing: as a federal prosecutor, I'm offended when they say we need a special unit so prosecutors can do the jobs they were already doing.
That's what you hire 10,000 federal prosecutors to do and spread them out across the country and have 150,000 people working in the FBI and DOJ.
We don't need another unit.
Another unit is established to satisfy a media narrative.
So they can go out there and say, we're taking this matter so seriously because it's so detrimental to the national security interests of America that we've created a whole new unit.
Where are the facts that show domestic terrorism and the like are on the rise?
I actually looked into it.
Do you know we're at the lowest point of cases in domestic terrorism in DOJ history in the last 10-year cycle?
Where are all the extremists?
Where are all the insurrectionists?
They're not there.
The cases aren't being brought.
So I just want to reinforce that.
So you read the CNBC article by Kevin Bruinger.
Again, CNBC, they usually cover stocks, right?
They have that lunatic, Kevin Kramer, who basically does his best Mussolini impersonation.
Yeah, let's have the military run it.
Just investigate everybody or vaccinate everybody.
So I just want to reinforce this.
So the CNBC writes that the Department of Justice on Tuesday announced forming a new unit to combat domestic terrorism as officials warn a persistent and evolving threat of violent extremism.
You're saying that's not the case.
Can I just also clarify something too?
Do you know that domestic terrorism is not a federal offense?
It's not a law.
You can't charge someone with the crime of domestic terrorism unlike you can charge someone with the crime of international terrorism because that is an actual crime.
Domestic terrorism only comes into play after a conviction for a crime for what we call a sentencing enhancement.
What we do is we walk in and we say, hey, this guy committed, remember the guys out in Oregon and Washington State that sort of took over this property and they were labeled funding, right?
They weren't charged as domestic terrorists, but at the end of the case, they were tried to enhance their sentence, meaning you go to prison for longer because the law doesn't allow you to charge us as domestic terrorists, but there's these things called sentencing enhancements, which guide a sentence.
And that's fine.
That's okay.
But this is where America loses its faith in its institutions.
Now, all of a sudden, you have most of America, because they read the New York Times or whatever, believing you can charge people with domestic terrorists.
So, what does CNN and MSNBC do?
They say, oh, all these people are domestic terrorists or extremists.
You have to charge by the conduct that's on the books.
And domestic terrorism isn't on the books.
I hate to break it to the mainstream.
Well, that's super interesting.
I didn't even know that.
You wouldn't know it based on just kind of a regular reading of the media or any of the coverage.
They could find some other technical problems, obviously, which is why they're trying to expand the entire umbrella of what they're looking into.
But most of these charges are trespassing charges, right?
Most of them are, they're, or they're just typical violence charges in order to get into, you know, the, you know, the technical aspects of it.
So you're saying like Timothy McVay was charged with murder and then sentencing said, oh, by the way, he's also a domestic terrorist or technical.
Exactly.
Okay.
Right.
He used explosive devices.
So that's a whole nother scenario and a whole other set of crimes you can charge when it's matched like that.
Yeah.
Right.
I want to get to something that is bothering me, Cash, a lot.
And you're the only one that really shoots straight on this topic, is the two standard of justice.
I'm so tired of seeing James O'Keefe's apartment rated, Rudy Giuliani's apartment rated, while I just don't see that kind of push for justice.
So maybe there's no update.
I see these things.
They come across every so often.
I don't know if I could trust it.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is being investigated.
Is that true?
Is there movement in the Durham camp towards the Clinton campaign?
Is that a legitimate report?
Yeah, let me set the parameters, though.
You know, I'm the biggest proponent of John Durham because I think he's doing the work methodically in the way I would do it.
Let's have a real conversation, though.
Was Hillary Clinton or Obama ever get indicted?
No.
I think Andy McCabe is John Durham's target, and I think that's a righteous target if we can hit it.
And the reason I think that the Hillary Clinton campaign is being investigated is because John Durham indicted the lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign and spent 40 pages telling the American public why the Hillary Clinton campaign was so involved in the Russia Gate criminal conspiracy.
And I don't know if you saw this pleading, but a week or two ago, John Durham issued a pleading for Danchenko.
And he said, Do you know who's representing Igor Danchenko, the number one source for the steel dossier?
He was indicted by John Durham.
Hillary Clinton's lawyers.
So there's this thing called a conflict of interest, where you cannot be represented by someone if that other someone represents a target of an investigation.
That was a glaring, glaring production by John Durham that almost everybody overlooked, which tells me that he's not only looking at the Hillary Clinton campaign, but investigating people in it because he notified a federal judge that there's a conflict of interest in the representation against one of the defendants.
It was a striking move from anyone, but it's not shocking that the Hillary Clinton campaign has nested themselves into the middle of the John Durham investigation so they can acquire information to protect the campaign.
And what's so unprecedented about this is how you had the political campaign that just kind of had unfettered access into these very same domestic agencies that we're looking at.
What other updates have we seen recently out of Durham that might be of note, if any at all?
I think that's it because the last time we talked was just before the holiday.
And I think right now that that conflict of interest one was a big, big piece of information for the public because it shows us where he's going.
If he didn't care about the Hillary Clinton campaign, it wouldn't matter to him.
If the Hillary Clinton campaign, to me as a prosecutor, were not a target of investigation, it doesn't matter that her campaign represents someone who's charged.
But the fact that he did that means not only are they a target of the investigation, here's what he's telling the American people: I, John Durham, are probably going to call witnesses from the Hillary Clinton campaign in my prosecutions.
I have witnesses.
I got a target in the grand jury.
There's so much work that has to be done by John Durham that I think it was only a two-page pleading, but I think it's immensely substantial.
Look, everyone out there has been asking me, Charlie, how do I get more pillows?
Well, that's mypillow.com.
And it's promo code Charlie, actually.
It's a great special.
And MyPillow doesn't have their box stores anymore, so we got to help them out.
And part of them being canceled, they want to give you the lowest price yet.
So you can get the lowest price in the history of MyPillow for their classic standard MyPillow regularly, $69.98, now only $19.98 with the promo code.
They also have queen size, regularly $79.98 and $24.98 with a promo code or king size, usually $89.98, only $29.98 with your promo code.
MyPillow is not just pillows.
They have over 150 products, everything from sleepwear to new beds.
The promo code Kirk also works on mystoreandfrankspeech.com.
Go to mypillow.com or call 800-875-0425 and use promo code Kirk to take advantage of Mike's special offer on his standard MyPillow.
Cash, I'm getting tons of emails and notes here from people that they're losing patience.
People say, McCabe is not high enough.
You know, what could we people are losing just faith in the justice system in general?
I'm sure you share some of those sentiments.
Yeah, 100%.
And it's extremely frustrating, especially as a former national security prosecutor who's in those shoes to say, well, I'm going to go after everybody else, but not.
I'm not going to go after the individuals in charge of the agencies, the enemy caves of the world that lied to the American public, was caught by the DOG Inspector IG, and was fired.
What do I say to them is that John Durham has a separate mission that is thankfully outside of basically the rest of the Department of Justice.
And there's no way that he can get fired or shut down because he has brought already three major criminal indictments.
His funding's not running out.
It can't.
His bandwidth, his mandate is not running out.
It can't.
It can only end when he, John Durham, says it's going to be over.
And what I remind people is I used to bring these complex national security cases that I spent three, four, five years on before we got to an indictment.
And John Durham's investigating the largest criminal conspiracy in United States history when it comes to a presidential election and a sitting president.
I can't even begin to imagine the stuff he's got to go through and how long it takes.
So I want it yesterday.
I feel with your viewers that want it yesterday, but that's why I think it's coming because he has done it silently and methodically.
Is there a statute of limitations or not?
Not with the stuff he's dealing with.
That stuff could be lifted, if I'm not mistaken, right?
Yeah, basically, once you establish a conspiracy, you can just keep it going by establishing one minor act along the way.
Okay.
And so it extends the window because we're at six years now.
And some laws on the books are seven years, if I'm not mistaken, right?
Seven, eight, ten.
I'm not worried about it.
Okay.
Yeah, because we're at six years now of when Peter Struckstroke Smirk and his lover, Lisa Page, you know, started to text back and forth.
It's the sixth year, Cash.
That's crazy.
I want you to think about that where we're coming in six years ago.
It was the calendar year of 2016.
And that's really where this activity happened, right?
That's where the wire transfers happened between Perkins Cooey and the Clinton campaign.
And that's really where this scheme was, you know, developed and concocted.
And it does beg the question of if they go after McCabe, can they get him to sing, right?
Probably not.
And how harsh of a sentence are they going to try to go for?
So, Cash, talk about your fund, Fight With Cash.
You know, they're going after you.
Why are they going after you?
Kind of build out that whole narrative.
Six Year Investigation00:01:47
I really appreciate it.
Thanks so much.
So fightwithcash.com, just like Charlie Kirkwitz with a K. Look, I got defamed.
I got crushed by the media.
Charlie, you know what that's like, but it's horrible to be defamed and lied about and have your name and family name dragged through the mud when it's totally false.
So I sued the New York Times, CNN Political.
I'm suing them for $150 million.
Those cases are live and ongoing.
But everyday Americans across the country that you meet, Charlie, and that I meet have had the same problem.
They basically have said, I've been defamed, I've been to platform, but I don't have the funds and I don't know the lawyers to bring those cases so I can have my day in court and clear my name.
FightwithCash.com is raising that money for them and taking their case to court.
We have a team of lawyers on standby who review the cases for free, just send in a summary, and we pay for your lawyers if you have a righteous case of action, be it in Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas, wherever in America, and whatever your background is, we will fight for your rights so you can have your day in court.
But we need support to do that.
And I'm going to put this out there for you, Charlie.
I think it'd be pretty fun if we did a Turning Point USA and Fight with Cash combo event somewhere in America.
We'd have a lot of fun.
I just got back from Nebraska and had 525 people pay to show up.
So I think we'd have some fun together.
It'd be fun.
Nebraska is a great place.
You got a lot of good patriots there.
So it's good stuff.
Cash, thank you so much for joining us.
It was great insight.
As always, it's fightwithcash.com.
Everybody, Cash.
We'll talk to you soon.
Thanks, Charlie.
I appreciate it.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your thoughts.
As always, freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
If you want to subscribe to our show, please do so.
Make sure you're subscribed by hitting the upper right-hand plus sign in the upper right-hand corner, I should say.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.