All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 10, 2021 - Kash's Corner
41:53
Kash’s Corner: A Blueprint for Durham and Accountability for the Crossfire Hurricane Scandal
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week's episode of Cash's Corner.
And Cash, we have something that's very, very much up your alley to talk about this week.
I know, you know, both of us read this, what Glenn Greenwald calls a viral mega thread, and indeed it was a viral mega thread uh done by Daryl Cooper.
It kind of explores how the Russia collusion hoax or operation or however we we want to call it essentially changed the perception of NAGA voters or perhaps a lot of conservatives in America of the whole set of institutions that you know are part of the US government.
One of the things that Daryl observes is the people that were following all the information that was coming out of the corporate media about uh Russia collusion and so forth.
If indeed it had been proven to be true, which of course it wasn't, these are people that would have eagerly supported any sort of prosecution that might have happened at the time.
But as the work that you and Congressman Nunes did at the House Intelligence Committee, you know, showed and and you know, of course, the IG report and so forth that came out subsequently, um, they increasingly realized that the system really wasn't working as they had believed to, and in the process became incredibly disillusioned.
And frankly, this is something that I've heard or variants of this is something that I've heard from many people that are I know we're MAGA voters over the past few years.
L let's talk a little bit about Durham.
Because Durham to this day is acting as special counsel looking into the origins of exactly this whole Russia collusion investigation.
And uh, and I think today what we're gonna do is we're gonna get you to give us a little bit of insight about what he might be doing, because a lot of people might not even know that he's even on the job right now.
Yeah, look, Jan, it's great to be back and uh looking forward to another exciting episode with you and uh just a simple reminder to our to our fan base, we're gonna give very special shout out to an inspirational uh fan of Cash's Corner at the end of the show.
Backing it up a little bit, I would say the American people usually and the majority of them have felt that accountability is something that should be applied equally to those in government as it is to those outside of government when they break the law.
Now it's been proven beyond any doubt that as you said, the Russia gate narrative, the Russia collusion narrative was a total fraud.
A fraud upon a federal court, on federal judges, on the attorney general, on the federal bureau of investigation, and most importantly, on the American people.
And I think that is why there's such energy and drive to understand why the accountability is lacking.
Now, with John Durham, look, you have to remember there's j there's John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, almost 10 years in that role.
In the spring of 2019, he was brought on by Bill Barr to look at, as the U.S. attorney in Connecticut to look at all of the things related to the Russia Gate uh hoax that we had uncovered on the House Intel Committee with Chairman Nunes and subsequently validated by the IG's uh independent report.
So Durham was going for a year plus on that matter, and then towards the end of the Trump administration, Bill Barr appointed John Durham to another role, special counsel.
Now, let me just stop you just for one sec.
So one thing about the IG report, and this of course was paraded a lot in the let's say the corporate media was the idea that the IG didn't find there was some sort of issue with the predication or the or the origins of the whole Russia collusion uh operation.
Well, let's just remind everyone the power, the limited powers of an inspector general.
One, they do not have subpoena power, and only people in government employed In government at the time of the inspector general's report are required to sit down with them and answer questions if they want to.
They have no authority outside of that.
They do not have a grand jury power.
They do not have subpoena power.
So a lot of the individuals in question, the Comeys, the McCabe, the Strox, the Lisa Pages, they they were all fired or resigned or retired early as a result of our hipsey house intelligence report because we were able to show the American people the ways in which they abused their authority.
So an inspector general's report is limited, but I would say this.
The key note from that, and I know most of the media wanted to ignore this, is he found 17 errors in the four federal warrant applications against the Trump campaign.
Any one of which he said was sufficient to overturn each individual warrant.
And that was the inspector general.
And two warrants eventually were reversed entirely by the Department of Justice.
So that is a significant finding by the inspector general.
But if you want to know what actually happened, you need to have criminal investigative powers, which the IG does not, but a John Durham would.
So John Durham is still around as special counsel now.
He actually he's left his role as uh uh U.S. attorney for Connecticut.
And but we really haven't heard anything from him.
Yeah, so j a quick reminder on special counsel.
So he's in place in the special counsel regulations outlined by the attorney general at the time of the appointment, say what John Durham is allowed to investigate, and essentially he's allowed to investigate the entire origins of the Russia collusion narrative and all the individuals involved.
And he has all the authorities that a Department of Justice prosecutor does grand jury, pedigury, subpoenas, national security letters, and the like.
So tremendous amount of power, and he has the investigative capability of FBI agents and federal law enforcement and local law enforcement to help them.
He's still in place because the special counsel's role has not ended.
It can only end when he finishes his submission to the attorney general as to recommend charges and or submit a written report for the public to read once the attorney general has written signed off on that report as well.
So neither of those things have happened, and obviously John Durham has not been removed as special counsel.
So he's still there.
I don't know what he's doing, but I know what I would do.
Well, I I guess that's that's that's something that we're gonna need to talk about today.
All right.
Um I mean, we have heard um that there's a number of people, and I think this was from Attorney General Barr when he was in the role, that a number of people are not under investigation.
I think uh um Plapper was one of them.
Um there's there's others that they're not coming to mind as an example.
Yeah.
Uh look, if I were still a federal prosecutor, as I was at the Department of Justice, running some pretty complex national security cases, I would uh basically run this entire prosecution investigation as if it was a giant conspiracy, because there's no way in the world that one medium-level attorney at the FBI, Kevin Kleinsmith, was the only person who orchestrated the greatest political fraud in American history.
There had to have been others involved.
And I'm not just saying that as an assumption, I'm saying that as we proved it over and over again during the House Intel report and our investigation there and also during the the revelations in the inspector general report.
So here's what I tell people that always ask me, where's the accountability?
Where where's the prosecutions?
I say, look, let the man finish his job, the man being John Durham.
But also you have to remember a congressional oversight investigation that we ran under Chairman Nunes on House Intel led to the firing or termination of 17 senior government officials.
That includes an FBI director, a deputy FBI director, very senior FBI and DOJ officials, and other individuals in federal government.
That is a tremendous amount of resignations and terminations and actual firings at that level.
Actually, which has never occurred in U.S. history, even if you recall Watergate, there wasn't that many individuals taken down by a congressional oversight investigation.
So that's step one.
Step two then Is for the DOJ to pick this thing up and use their extensive powers with grand jury and criminal authority to look at the individuals involved.
And there's a number of folks I would look at, and we can talk about how to how I would go about it.
Well, and sort of, and let's go back a little bit maybe to what we what we actually know, what's sort of public record.
People were, as you mentioned, 17 people were removed from their roles in various ways, including being fired.
Is that all we're going to see?
Well, I surely hope not, as a former member of the Department of Justice, because the purpose of the DOJ is to punish individuals across America that violate federal statutes.
But their bigger role, their more important role, is to punish those within government at its highest levels who violate federal law.
Now that is a role that the department I I know has always taken seriously and hopefully still is with John Durham, so I'm holding my breath on that one.
But outside of John Durham, the American public has to know that federal judges have, you know, there's a saying when I was a public defender and a prosecutor, no one's more powerful than a federal district court judge.
Federal district court judges have immense power when they are reviewing matters that appear before them, including federal warrants, search warrants, and in this case, a FISA warrant, which is just a foreign intelligence surveillance warrant, another form of a search warrant.
There has to be the highest levels of authorization and approvals to spy on a presidential campaign.
And a federal judge who authorized that warrant, and now we know there's four warrants authorized by four federal judges, each of those can haul every individual involved with that warrant from the attorney general to the FBI director to his entire team before his court and say, we now know there was a fraud committed upon this court, I am initiating contempt proceedings, which are federal offenses.
You know, and that's something also I think we should revisit.
There were two of these uh FISA warrants that you, as you just mentioned, that were invalidated.
Now that's something that's very, very rare as I understand it.
Yeah, so uh reversing a federal judge is if you ask a federal judge, they'll probably tell you that's one of the things that they don't appreciate the most because they're basically being told the decision you made to issue this search warrant or to issue this verdict in this case was wrong, was incorrect either in law, in fact, or both.
And so when we when you know when I was running the investigation for Chairman Nunes, and I first went to him with the possibility that not was not only was a federal judge lied to, but the foreign intelligence surveillance court, which is a specialized version of the most sensitive matters in the national security um apparatus.
And even I agreed at first blush, how can that happen in America?
That's not what happens here.
So we had to dig and get evidence, and as you said, we were able to show the fraudulent, intentionally fraudulent material that was submitted to the federal judge in the application.
But equally important was what was known to the government and was not submitted or withheld to that federal judge.
And for the Department of Justice to invalidate reverse two federal search warrants against the president of the United States, because they agreed that what we found was accurate, is significant in and of itself, and should have caused those four judges in the FISA court to act on their own while the Department of Justice was figuring out what to do.
So why let's take a guess?
Why wouldn't they?
What would be the reasons a judge wouldn't act in this sort of, you know, very, very unusual case, let's call it.
Well, maybe it either embarrassment or they don't want to call more light to the matter, or be the ones as being recognized by the American public as having been duped by the FBI and the Department of Justice.
But those aren't reasons sufficient for a federal judge to fail in the performance of their duties.
So they have all the information they need to initiate contempt proceedings.
Rewinding the clock a little bit, when we were working on this investigation on the Hill, we sent letters, classified letters to the federal intelligence surveillance court, to the federal judges in charge of this process, Outlining the various uh fraud and intentional misrepresentations and withholding of exculpatory evidence to the FISC in two different settings.
And each time we were sternly rebuked.
So for these federal judges on the FIS to respond to those two letters, separate letters, and basically deflect their duty to say, go look at the Department of Justice.
No, no, we're looking at the federal judge, you who this warrant was signed off on and approved on in your court, in your presence.
You're the ultimate arbiter, not the Department of Justice or the FBI.
And I think the first time they just thought we were nuts because we were saying these crazy things and we had to have been nuts.
And the second time, when we put all of our actual factual findings in another letter, they didn't uh didn't reply to us for some time and then deflected yet again and said someone else should look at this.
Well, so we have uh I guess special counsel now Durham uh ostensibly working on this.
I mean, until he decides to finish, right?
He's on the job.
So let's do a kind of a thought experiment here.
You know, you're someone that's you know intimately familiar with a lot of different elements of this case, obviously.
Um not everything by any means.
But uh why don't you put on a special counsel hat here for a minute and tell me what would you do here?
Well, this is this would be fun.
I think uh if that were actually to come to terms, the uh people might be terrified.
But if I were special counsel and going back to my federal prosecutor days and my federal public defender days, I would look at one whether or not there was an overarching conspiracy, because as I said earlier, no one person could pull this off alone.
It's impossible.
And two, I would look at all of the findings of the House Intel work and also the IG report that demonstrated multiple levels of of failures in duty, intentional or otherwise, by people as high as the director of the FBI, the deputy director of the FBI, the head of counterintelligence for the FBI, Peter Strack, and others on down.
And I would immediately run two parallel investigations.
One, a conspiracy, two, I would look at the separate statutes that were substantially violated by the actions of one, two, three, four, five, six, or other people, um, to look at the underlying actions in that conspiracy.
And I would be running two investigations.
Well, so let's let's start with uh with the conspiracy side.
So what what does that what would that look like?
Well, so on its face, people say conspiracy and they're like, oh, ooh, you're talking about like made-up stuff.
No, conspiracy is a federal crime.
If you break the law, you have to show a substantive act, an overt act in support of the conspiracy.
And what we found was multiple people in roles as high as the director of the FBI, the director of deputy director of the FBI and others withheld information from a federal judge, and or lied to an inspector general,
and or lied under oath at congressional testimony, and or the ones in charge of verifying that search warrant that certified everything in it was accurate and verified, which the law requires, knowing that the opposite was true, meaning that it was a fraudulent warrant and submitted it before a federal judge.
So those are the things I would be looking at as to who all the players are in that space, and those names are very common by now, and as as we alluded to earlier, 17 people were removed from office because of our investigation.
So I would start with those 17 people.
Okay, so that's there's there's uh the the conspiracy side.
What about these individual statutes that you're talking about?
Yeah, and I'm not uh a you know constitutional lawyer or have those any of those statutes memorized, but when you submit something to a federal judge as a prosecutor and the FBI agent who signs the warrant saying all these facts are true, um, you are basically held out to a standard that says if you lie to the federal judge, it is a federal offense.
There's a statute for that.
So you can be prosecuted thereunder.
You can also be placed under contempt of court proceedings, which is separate, and you don't need the Department of Justice for that.
That's just initiated by a federal judge.
And I would love for any one of these federal judges to initiate contempt proceedings, but I have not seen or heard about that happening, which is a separate failure, uh, in my opinion.
And then I would also be looking at substantive crimes, such as Kleinsmith.
He purposely, intentionally deleted the word not from an email that was used in a FISA application in reference to Carter Page.
That is a substantive crime.
There is no way, in my opinion, he did that on his own.
And there is no way other people in the FBI either instructed him or told him to do it, and or other people did not know about it.
And so every one of those people in that chain of command with that knowledge is liable as liable, if not more liable, than Kevin Kleinsmith.
And I would prosecute those individuals for lying to a federal court like they did Kevin Kleinsmith.
And just to quickly kind of refresh everyone's memory, the removal of that one word basically, you know, changed the entire meaning of the email.
Completely.
Right.
It was basically saying, did Carter Page assist a federal government agency in the past, and they made it as out to be Carter Page did not assist a federal government agency in the past, be which goes to the individual's credibility.
And Carter Page was the target of the search warrant.
So to intentionally uh delete or add a word that, as you said, completely changes the narrative is illegal, as we were shown by one, the only prosecution we've seen in this case.
But there are others too, and I've and I forgot to mention, I guess while you're running these two parallel investigations and prosecutions, I would also run a cleaks investigation.
That is whether or not classified information was leaked and by whom.
Now, we know it was leaked, because the media when reviewing cases or matters that involve leaks of classified information during this Russia Gate hoax, the media went apoplectic and they just discharged their total duties of journalistic integrity and intentionally disclosed classified information, as was shown with so many individuals in the mainstream media, and they didn't care.
Um that's a separate matter, the media side of it, which I'm not going to take up.
That they were willing to do so is just so far beyond the pale of journalism that it actually hurts the national security of our country, but only the American public can really deal with that.
But the individuals in the media were fed this information by someone with a security clearance in the United States government.
That's the only way they could receive this information by individuals at the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and so on.
Who are these individuals that in high-ranking posts?
Because remember, the information they were leaking was known by a very small universe of people.
Not everybody with a clearance had access to this information.
And so you can narrow down the list to 15, maybe 20 people, and say, was the director of the FBI involved, was a deputy director of the FBI involved, was a head of counterintel involved, was a lawyer at the FBI involved, who at the DOJ was involved, and any other individuals that were involved in the investigation.
And then you can look at their accesses and look at when they were, or excuse me, you can look at when they had access to this information, and then I would look at their phones, their emails, their work phones, their private emails, meetings they had with individuals in the media, contacts they had within the individuals in the media at or around the time of the disclosure in the media.
And that's a leak of classified information.
That is a federal offense punishable by I think over a decade in prison off the top of my head.
Yeah, it's a pretty serious matter.
But no one's been prosecuted for a leak of classified information.
However, I hope John Durham is utilizing his authority to look at that, such as to look at whether or not James Comey disclosed classified information when he leaked the Comey letters as they are now commonly referred to, disclosing private conversations with the president of the United States, executive privilege matter there too.
And to see he and Comey is admitted publicly to saying he did that so that a special counsel Muller would be appointed to oversee the actions of his Comey's FBI Because he had been shortly thereafter or was terminated by then.
So it's sort of a retaliatory effort, which is a telltale sign of someone in authority disclosing information.
But I would be looking at that pretty hard.
Um I would be looking at his deputy to see if he did it, and I would be looking at all the others that were removed for violations of either the internal regulations, or just because they flat out knew themselves, they broke the law and decided to leave government service.
So they wouldn't be subject to the inspector general's investigation.
You know, so you know, we were talking about this uh thread earlier by Daryl Cooper.
Um a lot of the people that were seeking accountability in this case, you know, that I'm talking about the American public, people I've spoken with, um, they've said things like they they they don't believe anything can even come of uh this uh Durham investigation.
And there's this kind of No, well the I I could say that the people I've spoken of at least feel demoralized and feel like the institutions have failed them.
Um and there's this has been replicated in many, in many, many examples.
Um what do you think?
Yeah, so I think the Russia Russia conspiracy Russia gate hoax was the first big investigation that sort of broke the American public's confidence in our government institutions.
And then when we thought that nothing like this could ever happen again, as you mentioned, there were other instances.
You know, not just the Russia hoax and the impeachment stuff, but there were things like the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, which is a duty of the legislative branch of government to confirm an individual for the highest court in the land, and to have all of these false allegations presented to the United States Congress,
and then to have them trumpet it out as if they were hard truth and fact when they were disproven, again destroyed the American people's confidence in our institutions.
Because our institutions just don't lie in the executive branch.
It's not just the DOJ and the FBI, but it's also the judiciary, the federal judges, the FISC, the foreign intelligence surveillance court, and also the legislative branch, Congress, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
So I think when you take all the events we've been talking about, they tie across all three branches of government, and you now see why the American public has lost confidence in our U.S. government as a whole, writ large, to hold themselves accountable.
And it's very unfortunate that we are at this stage, and they've been assisted, of course, by a majority of people in the media who do not want to talk about the truth.
They do not want to talk about violations of law.
So, yeah, what I always tell people in this is to juxtaposition a separate analogy.
And I would say, imagine if Hillary Clinton won the election or president of the United States.
Then imagine if during the that election cycle, President or elect then candidate Trump hired a private law firm in the United States who would then hire a former spy of one of our allies to dig up dirt against Hillary Clinton.
And that dirt proved to be false and made up and paid for by her opposition, then all that information was packaged up and submitted to a federal court, and a federal judge said, yes, I'm going to not only spy on President Hillary Clinton's campaign, but I'm authorizing the spying on her as a president twice over when she's in office.
And the Department of Justice would have signed off on that, and the FBI would have signed off on that.
Imagine what the media and the American public reaction would have been if the tables were turned.
And that's the best example I have as to to show the hypocrisy in the media that has aided everything from Russia Gate hoax to the impeachments, or be it the Kavanaugh hearings on Capitol Hill.
And that is why the other half of America has totally lost faith in the American government to hold itself accountable.
Well, so what about Durham?
Well, as I said, if I were Durham, those are you know, the leaks investigation is something I would be looking at.
The substantive crimes committed by all the individuals from the FBI director on down is something I would be looking at.
Did every one of those individuals who testify before Congress, and almost every one of them did under oath, did they lie to Congress?
Because we have transcripts that we can compare what they said under oath versus what the information they wrote and swore to in search warrant applications in FBI reporting and DOJ reporting, where there are crimes committed there.
And then of course the overarching conspiracy.
Because as you know, Jan, when we're talking about conspiracy, and again that word comes up, I always think, and I fully believe that no one person caused uh the Russia Gate hoax to transpire.
We have evidence of that.
We have the director of the FBI and the deputy director of the FBI saying completely opposite things in terms of what they knew, when they knew, and we also have the head of counterintelligence saying publicly, or to his lover, actually, um, when she asked him about whether or not Trump was going to win, and he literally said, No, no, we are going to stop it.
I mean, imagine that.
The head of counterintelligence for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in America, who is in charge of investigating a presidential campaign, says we are going to prevent that man from becoming president.
Or at least that's how it's interpreted.
So for, you know, and what I would say for just looking at that statement alone that Peter Strzok made, I would say, look at the rest of the evidence surrounding that statement.
That is the meeting in Andy McCabe's office, the famous insurance policy meeting.
Look at the information that was declassified subsequent to both the House Intel reporting and the inspector general's reporting to see who else was acting in conjunction with Peter Strock, Annie McCabe, and Lisa Page as they huddled in the deputy director's office to talk about an insurance policy.
What did they do in the next week or two after that in support of that insurance policy?
Does that information exist?
I would go out and get it.
And I would bet that that information is in a FISA application that hasn't been disclosed yet, or FBI reporting that hasn't been made public yet.
But if I were John Durham, I would be looking at all of that.
And the last thing I would do is I would be utilizing our grand jury system.
As a federal prosecutor, we have very wide authorities given to us by the legislature.
And one of them is the grand jury.
And the grand jury basically decides whether or not you have enough information to bring a case forward and actually charge someone.
And the threshold in a grand jury is just 51% to 49% of the 17 to 34 jurors that you have in that room that you're presenting information to.
So it's not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that requires a conviction in criminal court.
But it's the step that allows you to get to the charging document to eventually get to that later step.
And what you do is you submit evidence through a federal agent who testifies before a grand jury and says this is the information we've collected, and you present it to them, and they basically take it under advisement and say, Yes, we think that there might have been a crime committed.
That's all you need for a grand jury to issue an indictment or a bill, as we call it.
And so in this case, I would use a grand jury to lock in all the evidence, substantive, that is, all the documentary evidence, all the classified evidence, all the unclassified evidence, all the media reporting, everything you can find, and I would put that into a grand jury so it's on the record, sworn under oath by an FBI agent.
And once you do that, it's there forever, basically, until the grand jury is terminated.
Because some of these conspiracy cases go on for years, so you use that same grand jury for years.
The other thing I would do with the grand jury is all the individuals, the 17 that I alluded to earlier and others, you can subpoena every one of those individuals to a Bureau of grand jury.
And each one of those individuals has a right under the Constitution to take the fifth, as is commonly known, or to walk into a grand jury and say, I'm not going to provide any information that might self-incriminate and put that person in jeopardy.
So that's uh a right in the uh established by the Bill of Rights, and I fully support it.
But as a former federal prosecutor who ran conspiracy cases, what you do is you give immunity to one of the witnesses or one of the conspirators involved in your overarching conspiracy.
And then they can no longer be Prosecuted for any crime.
And they have to testify in the grand jury against the other individuals.
And if I were running this case, the individual I would give full immunity to is Lisa Page, who is the former gener uh assistant general counsel at the FBI who is involved in the FISA application processes, who is having an affair with the head of counterintelligence who was leading this investigation,
who was very close with Andy McCabe, the deputy director of the FBI, who he himself requested Lisa Page be one of the attorneys involved in this investigation, and who herself had extensive dealings with uh the likes of James Comey and the Department of Justice.
If if I were prosecuting this case, I would give her uh immunity in the grand jury, and probably full-on immunity throughout the rest of the case, to say we need to know what happened, and we represent the American public.
We have to restore faith in the American public's trust in the institutions of the Department of Justice and the FBI in this instance.
And we need you to tell us what happened, and that's what I would do.
And then sh and that person would be required to cooperate because they are no longer under the power of prosecution and conviction, which is the whole purpose of taking the fifth.
Fascinating.
So as we finish up, special counsel Durham.
From what you're saying, he may have actually already completed a report that we might not know about right now.
He might have.
I don't think he has.
And just so we're we're clear for our audience, the special counsel regulations require that every special counsel produce a report to the attorney general.
Step one.
But everybody in the media and everyone that I've been talking to over the last year, year and a half is sort of looking for this report, looking for this report, and looking for this report.
And I remind them, I said, the report is a component of the special counsel.
But the furor in which the American public has reacted and the degree to which they have lost faith in our institutions at the DOJ and the FBI, I believe can only be restored by actual indictments, which is the other role of the special counsel.
As a special counsel, he has grand jury authority and the authority to bring charges, just like Mueller did.
Bob Mueller brought a couple of cases as special counsel.
That's the actual true purpose of a special counsel.
And John Durham has that authority.
So he's got that in track one.
In track two, the regulations require him to produce a report to the attorney general, as I said.
Now that report is completely within the auspices of the attorney general to publicize or not, or to redact the IR entire thing and put out one page.
So Merrick Garland is the only one per the special counsel regulations who can disclose that report.
But what I stress to people is the report's secondary.
I worry less about the report and whether that's going to be submitted, knowing John Durham and knowing the work he did under the rendition program as counsel, as U.S. attorney overseeing that prosecution and investigation.
I believe he will produce a comprehensive report to Merrick Garland.
My overarching concern as a former federal prosecutor at DOJ who handled Benghazi for the Department of Justice and also a former federal public defender is accountability must be meted out, not just for those we get to oversee from the Department of Justice, but internally within the Department of Justice.
And that is what has cost the American public so dearly.
That is what is...
That is the reason they have lost faith in our institutions.
And the only way you get it back, and I firmly believe that is, I believe crimes were committed during the Russia Gate hoax by individuals and groups of people, and those crimes have to be prosecuted.
And only special counsel John Durham has the ability to do that.
So Cash, while you were at DNI uh with Rick Crennell, you declassified a whole bunch of material.
I mean, some of which no one has ever seen other than you and perhaps a handful of others.
Uh what's what happened with that?
Yeah, so that's a great point, Jan.
The other way, or I would Say a way that the Americans people faith can be restored in its institutions is not just by a special counsel report or special counsel prosecutions, but also what Devin and I believe to be at the heart of why we took on the Russia Gate hoax and accountability.
Instead of us, the US government telling the American people what we found, why don't you just let them read it for themselves?
And so declassification is a significant component that we didn't talk about.
Um that we started while we were on the Hill together at uh House Intel, Devin and I, and then we continued that work when Rick and I were running the intelligence community.
And we felt it, and I still feel that today, that there is a whole slew of documents that have been identified that could show the American people what actually happened.
And to this date, I don't know why those documents have not been made public.
We tried and we got a bunch out.
We got a handful of documents out.
But as Louie Brandeis used to say, Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
So why not just let all these documents out?
The Russia Gate hoax is over.
Nothing else is happening involving that.
And the American people then can go and look into themselves and say, what happened here?
And they can just read this FBI report.
They can just read this search warrant application.
They can just read about this old source that was paid all this money and provided all this great intel that turned out to be fake and fraudulent, and that was intentionally relied upon by the highest levels of our government to perpetrate this massive fraud.
And so that's a key component to restoring faith in our institutions.
It's not just reports, it's not just prosecutions, but it's declassification of all the material that the government collected and created during this massive fraud that needs to be put forth so America can read it.
How much of what was declassified is actually out there right now, and how much of it could be out there?
So going all the way back to 2015-16 and the House Intel investigation, which uh Chairman Newton and I and our team did, um, to fast forward all the way till President Trump left office.
I would say within that period between what we did at Congress, what Rick and I did at DNI, what Johnny Ratcliffe continued at DNI, and the work of others, we probably put out 30% of the information that should be out there.
And people have always told us, well, you're going to harm sources and methods, you're going to destroy relationships, you're going to hurt America, and the mainstream media, of course, ran with that empty epithet.
Um, but there's ways to do it.
We did it.
We re we released more information than has been by the United States institutions than any point in our history on such a sensitive matter.
We did it in a way that didn't kill anyone.
No source was harmed, no national security interest was jeopardized, and no relationship was ruined with our foreign allies.
And the the remaining 70% was documented as to what should be declassified for the American people.
And I know that entire amount of material was actually declassified at the end of the Trump administration, but I don't know what happened to it.
I don't know why the American people haven't seen it.
I just know that it was done in a way that was very methodically done to protect sources and methods like we had done for years, and the and the counter narrative to that was always you're going to harm America and America's interests.
But as we've shown, the American people is owed that information and there's a safe way to do it.
And I hope that binder is made public someday very soon, because it would inform the American people of exactly what happened over those years of investigations and the failures of many in our institutions such as DOJ and FBI.
Who can actually do that?
Uh release that 70% that you don't know what happened to.
So ultimately, either the president of the United States can do it himself, and or individuals like the Attorney General who holds the authority to do that after a review is conducted by the equity holders and equity holders are just people that created those documents.
People in the intelligence community, people at the FBI, you give them the ability to review it and say, don't release this, release this, and then ultimately it funnels up to the decision maker, and that person is responsible for revealing that information, such as the attorney general or the president.
Well without getting into details because I know you can't, um what would this you know 70% of the documents show?
Sure.
I as you s as you said, I can't talk about the substance, but I can tell you what I think they would show, and they would show fraud, corruption, and abuse at the highest levels of the very institutions we're talking about, the FBI, the DOJ, parts of the intelligence community.
And above all, it would show these institutions being embarrassed by a few bad actors at the seniormost levels, which is unheard of in the United States government history.
And I think that is the exact reason why those documents are not being released, but it's also the exact reason why they should be released, so the American public can read them for themselves and see how bad this embarrassing conduct was and whether or not it was actually criminal.
Cash, I think we've had a pretty robust episode here.
I think it's time for our shout-out.
Yeah, Jan.
And uh this week's shout-out goes to Josh, who goes by the moniker The Dirty Truth on Twitter, who is an inspirational American.
Josh is handicapped and doesn't have the use of his hands, but he's able to put out clips of videos through the assistance of audio devices and video devices on his Twitter account.
And we appreciate you putting out clips of Cash's Corner in the past, and we hope to can you continue to do so, Josh.
Thanks for being a supporter.
▲
Export Selection