Kash's Corner - Kash’s Corner: The Politicization of the US Intel Community’s Investigation Into COVID Origins

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 10, 2021 - Kash's Corner

34:17

Kash’s Corner: The Politicization of the US Intel Community’s Investigation Into COVID Origins

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everybody, welcome to Cash's Corner with me and Jan.
	So Cash, you know, we did this uh fantastic episode, the last one, basically, about uh the Wuhan lab and how the media uh treated this Wuhan lab leak theory early on as a conspiracy and so forth.
	You know, since we chatted last time, a lot of, I guess, fresh information has come out, especially in the realm of let's call it the Fauci emails, right?
	There was a very uh big FOIA request, uh, initially over 300 emails and some more coming uh after that.
	So I know we've we've both been kind of digging in them a little bit.
	What did you see in there?
	So it's uh I'm glad it's finally coming out and it's fresh to the American public, but it's not something that was fresh to uh us back when we were running the direct office of the director of national intelligence, Rick Grinnell and I, because we were knee deep in the intelligence when the when the COVID virus broke out and we knew or had an idea of its origins at the time, and we also were watching Fauci on TV talk about it as if he had no idea what was going on.
	And it's nice to see someone use the FOIA system for what it's supposed to be used for to hold government officials accountable.
	And I think that's what you're finally starting to see.
	I've seen these memes out there.
	I'm just thinking about this, that basically you know are kind of saying, you know, to the effect of you know, how come they actually use the official channels to have these discussions?
	Because it seems like that those channels have been bypassed in various ways in the in the past.
	Well, I mean, you're s you mean Fauci?
	Yeah, I mean sure.
	I mean, but you're supposed to, I mean, that's like when you sign up for government duty, you're supposed to not use your private email accounts or your personal cell phones because there's a you know, there's a records component to your work, whether it's in health, national security, agriculture, wherever you're stationed or military or civilian work, you have to use your professional email accounts and cell phones and work lines so that there's a record of your service.
	And that's the whole point.
	And they're supposed to be available for the American public, which is where FOIA comes in, so they can see it and Congress can have oversight over the individuals who are serving in those positions.
	So there seems to be this kind of time period.
	I guess it's toward the end of February, where, you know, I guess Dr. Pauci was getting some uh suggestions, at least from one researcher, that uh that there could be some sort of engineering involved uh with the virus and so forth.
	And uh and pretty quickly after that, it seems like the opposite message started coming out kind of via all channels.
	This is looking not at the emails themselves, but looking at what actually happened in the media, uh, so forth and so forth.
	Like what do you make of that?
	Well, this is a perfect example of how the media, most of it, not all of it, how the media propped up someone who was willing to say anything in contravention of President Trump, and just because he was saying things that President Trump was not being supportive of, they said he was the subject matter expert in the arena, which is totally false because President Trump receives the presidential daily briefing.
	He got it from Rick Grinnell and I, that is the job of the Office of Director of National Intelligence to brief the president on America's most sensitive intelligence matters.
	And in February and March, when COVID broke, that's exactly what we were doing.
	So the president was the one with the actual granular information regarding everything we had at the time on the COVID origin.
	You know, why wasn't there an attempt, I guess, to kind of validate what the president was saying at the time.
	That's a great question.
	So there was.
	It might shock you, right?
	You know, you receive your signals from the president when you work in the intelligence community as to what are his priorities at any given time.
	Is it Iran?
	Is it Russia?
	Is it Cuba?
	What have you?
	Obviously, in February, March, he made it very clear to us at the DNI that we need to figure out what's going on with the COVID virus, where it came from, how big is it going to be.
	And that signal should have been enough for the intelligence community to shift off other topics that they were collecting On that weren't as important at the time.
	And that's how you run the intelligence community.
	But unfortunately, because it was President Trump who said we need to go here, here, and here, and Rick Rennell and I followed suit and issued those directives.
	Some of the folks internally in the intelligence community thought he's crazy, we're not going to listen to him.
	We're not going to shift our intelligence collection posture.
	And that's uh that that's that's somehow okay to do.
	Well, apparently it was it was never okay to do another presidency, but it's okay to do in President Trump's presidency because he was president.
	And that's why, in conjunction with that lack of chain of command or respect for the chain of command, adding Fauci into that mix, you basically have this guy who's supposed to be the nation's leading expert on medical issues, who is going off and going to the podium and becoming America's new media star based on his gut feelings.
	And these emails finally show that he actually knew or had an idea that there was a possibility that the origins of the virus could have come from a lab.
	And we knew that at the time because we were briefing the president on the intelligence and the possibilities of his origin.
	Well, and then there's this whole other element that uh has gotten, I guess, a lot of coverage recently, and that's the US government funding for that specific lab.
	Right.
	And there's, you know, it seems like the funding actually came through a number of different channels.
	Um, one was through this, the Eco Alliance, uh, another one was there was some direct funding as well from what I've seen.
	Um so the suggestion is, I guess, that it's that it's this relationship specifically which kind of made it so that the community didn't want to move on this on this particular issue.
	Is it do you have any sense of this at all?
	Well, unfortunately, the the it's just another iteration of the some of the careers who opposed President Trump during his presidency.
	This is just another example of an area that they did it in, be it um issues at the border, be it energy issues, pipeline issues, now the China virus, the Wuhan lab leak uh issue was rising to be the number one um national security matter at the time.
	And if you recall, he shot down travel to China based upon the intelligence briefings he was re was receiving, and I think he did that rightly so.
	But at the time, he was castigated for it because um he was the one, he, President Trump, was the one who did it.
	So it's a continuing pattern.
	You can pick your subject matter, you can talk about whatever you want, insert Russia Gate here, insert impeachment one here, insert impeachment two here, insert Jan Sixth here.
	But because it's President Trump, it was treated totally differently.
	So this is okay, this is actually a very interesting point.
	So, you know, when I remember when that instituted the travel ban.
	There was, of course, this huge outcry that it's racist and it shouldn't be done and so forth.
	But at the same time, there was never a kind of a focus on the fact that China or the Chinese Communist Party was, you know, pushing hard to keep that those, I guess the floodgates open, so to speak.
	Um, even though now we know that they already knew what was happening, that if there was there was an infectious disease.
	Look, I think the Chinese government, I I don't have anything to prove this right on, but I think the Chinese government has known the entire time what has happened, and I think they've done an uh tremendous job at keeping that information to themselves and relying upon the mainstream media globally to perpetuate uh misconceptions about the origins of the virus and talk about wet labs and bats and people eating things,
	and um that just throws the world off the track as to the actual origins or the possibilities of it.
	And it was something that should have been looked at more sternly, more rigidly, and Fauci didn't do us any favors by going to the podium in the White House Situation Room every other day and grandstanding.
	And that's what I felt he was doing at the time, and it was a great disservice to America.
	So I want to pull up uh uh a bit of um something from an article actually by Vanity Fair, and they say that essentially their analysis found conflicts of interest stemming in part from large government grants supporting controversial virology research and this hampered the US investigation into COVID-19 at every step.
	This is the allegation that they're making.
	So it's not necessarily not saying it was just to focus on Trump here.
	This is a, they're they're basically saying that it's the these conflicts of interest that are the issue.
	Well, I think that's another branch of the origins of the COVID virus that needs to be examined, not just by Congress, but by the media and looked at seriously, because if the US taxpayers were funding this lab,
	which it now looks like we were in some fashion through multiple um inject points, then all the more reason we we American citizens should know what went on in the Wuhan lab that we're partially paying for, especially if it had to something to do with the origins of the COVID virus.
	And I think that's a troubling tale for the mainstream media who largely probably ignored that for the last year and change.
	And now it's you're sort of seeing a confluence of events.
	One, we were right in February of 2020 in terms of what we were advising the president on, and the media was wrong when they blasted us for saying, how dare we say that this could have possibly come from a lab.
	And now you have money to back it up from the American taxpayers.
	So, you know, what do you make of the fact that this that uh the US was funding gain of function research, which had already been, you know, that there's of course huge questions about that.
	Sure.
	I mean, in general, the US, rightly so, I believe, funds lots of organizations around the world, partially or wholly.
	And generally, it's for the advancement of global matters, global security matters, global health matters.
	And I think that's the right thing to do.
	We fund lots of um AIDS prevention matters in Africa, and I think we should continue to do that.
	I think we fund lots of matters regarding the advancement of women in the Middle East, and I think we should continue to do that.
	So I don't disagree with the concept of funding a virology lab in China.
	But if we're doing it and that lab happens to be the epicenter of the largest plague in a century, I think we need to take a further look at what who's paying for it and why, and why can't we get answers from the Chinese government if we're paying them?
	Well, so I think I I'm gonna push back on you a little bit.
	Okay.
	Because China, we know and from intelligence that you've no doubt seen that a lot of China has this model of civilian military fusion, right?
	And we know, and actually, Secretary Pompeo, uh, we had him uh uh, you know, in an article recently talking about how it's clear from what he was saying that there is military involvement, Chinese military involvement in that Wuhan lab.
	Uh, that the intelligence on that is clear.
	So, you know, does it would it ever make sense for I'm from not saying that the US shouldn't fund, you know, with with friendly countries, but in a kind of a country that's sort of doing uh unrestricted warfare against the US, does it make sense to be funding, you know, something like in a function research, which is potentially potentially has military applications in the first place in the first place.
	Well, that's a great point.
	So the Chinese military is one of our biggest opponents on the intelligence front, on national security matters in the South China Sea.
	So generally speaking, we should not be assisting them in collecting against us and our interests.
	But sometimes there is a position where the military can come together with civilian leadership to do good.
	And I'm just talking about generally.
	Now you're right, in China, that's a tall hill to climb because of what they've done to our interest in the region and what they've done in their handling of the COVID virus.
	So I can see the amount of skepticism you want to take on this one.
	And I don't necessarily disagree with it.
	I'm maybe just hopeful or optimistic that maybe there is some good that the Chinese government can still do.
	But the question remains that, hey, as you put it, we're paying for it.
	So what was the Chinese military's role in the lab at the time of the COVID outbreak?
	I think that's a question that China owes us immediately.
	Well, and but as far as we know, a lot of the evidence from that lab, including a lot of the samples there have actually were destroyed pretty early on.
	Yeah, I mean, that's not surprising Chinese tradecraft, and that's indicative to me of basically they didn't want the rest of the world to find out what they already do.
	Look, when China wants to put something in a locked box and deep six it, they can.
	They can make people disappear, they can make our hostages disappear, they can put people in in uh in modern-day internment camps and not have the world even know about it.
	Unfortunately, they're very good at that.
	So it doesn't surprise me that the Chinese were able to memory hold the origins of the COVID virus and continue to do so.
	So I'm gonna dig into my notes a little bit here again.
	And um there were a couple of very, very interesting reports.
	One recently, citing anonymous sources, another one from a little while ago by Bill Gertz.
	And they have to do with uh basically a high-ranking defector, right?
	Apparently, according to this is uh a source that Red State got there's a high-ranking defector, one of the highest ranking ever from the People's Republic of China is working with the DIA for months.
	Uh, and this is kind of one of the reasons why this whole issue has come into the forefront again.
	I know you probably won't be able to comment on the intelligence and so forth, but uh part of this report is basically saying that the FBI was kept completely in the dark about this, and potentially the CIA as well, because the defector felt like there were the institutions might be compromised, so they didn't want to work with them.
	Is this sort of thing even kind of possible?
	Uh like it's it would be hard to fathom that the DIA would be working with somebody and you know these other organizations wouldn't know about it at all.
	Is that reasonable?
	Um generally speaking, yeah, I'm not familiar with the even in my time in government, I'm not familiar with the substance of that uh article of those pieces that have started coming out.
	But generally speaking, you know, we have different ways to collect intelligence.
	The FBI has their way, the CIA has their way, the Department of Defense has their way.
	And in an ideal world, what's supposed to happen is there's supposed to be sort of a weaving together or a crossing over of these intelligence collection methods.
	But when reality strikes and you have agencies and you're talking about the DIA, which is hundreds of thousands strong, and the FBI, which has over 100,000, and you're talking about you know the our intelligence community, which has over a hundred thousand personnel working in it, it becomes very difficult to get all of that to fit.
	Where all of that is supposed to come into uh a cross section is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
	They're supposed to receive everything that's being collected so they can direct that back to the president to serve in his presidential daily briefing.
	Um so I do see that the possibility that that that could occur.
	Um and you alluded to one of the reasons was maybe the person defecting doesn't have trust in the other agencies.
	That's entirely possible because of what you've seen over the last four or five years with what the FBI and DOJ and CIA did to uh then candidate Trump and also when he was president.
	Um there's this other report that I was just uh referencing, and this was this came out I think last September, um, and this was Bill Gertz reporting on a high-level uh Chinese defector that actually ended up going to Europe because they didn't have confidence in the US intelligence community.
	And uh, you know, this this report had a number of other elements to it.
	So again, um, you know, kind of makes me wonder is there is there a connection between the two?
	But one of the things that uh that in that second report by Bill Gertz from in September was that he was talking about how sources in the um I believe it was in well in the government.
	I can't remember exactly where we're telling him that uh there was a biowarfare program, the Chinese Communist Party did have a bio, does have a biowarfare program, and that some of that warfare program was actually even focused on uh creating pathogens that might affect different ethnicities differently or might focus on certain ethnicities.
	I thought that was kind of astounding.
	I was just reminded of this, reading this new and new information.
	Well, unfortunately, Our adversaries like China have those programs that we call Cambia warfare programs.
	That's uh a reality of of the work that they do, and they're not the only ones in the world that does it.
	Our concern is A, that they do it, and B, where do they direct those efforts out at?
	And if the origins of the COVID virus sort of cross over into what you're talking about now, which it would if it's true, um, that the Chinese government sort of manipulated the origins of the COVID virus and directed it out either intentionally or because they screwed up,
	that's a serious problem uh for the global health community of use as you've seen, and the American intelligence community needs to dig in deeper to figure out whether or not that happened, and that's a great question that we should be demanding answers of of this administration.
	So and you know, President Trump has demand basically issued a statement recently, uh, I think in this recent speech demanding reparations from the Chinese Communist Party.
	Yeah, why not?
	I mean, look, if they caused intentionally or because of malfeasance or sheer stupidity, the outbreak of a plague that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and shut down the global economy for over a year, then there has to be some accountability.
	It can't just be swept under the rug, and you can't just keep giving the Chinese government more money and more means to attack America and its interests.
	So I think reparations are a great way.
	They should pay for vaccines around the world if that's something that this administration exacts from them, or they should pay for medical cost or um hits to our economy.
	And I think if President Trump were in power, he'd probably be issuing some pretty strong tariffs against the Chinese government right now to get the intelligence fidelity that we need.
	Well, so that's the question.
	So, what would be the bar in your mind for establishing, you know, whether these reparations are due?
	Because there's some kind of process, obviously, that would that would have to happen.
	The intelligence.
	That's it.
	To me, it's pretty simple.
	The intelligence existed back in February and March.
	It's existed entire time since then, and it exists now, meaning it's been ongoing.
	We didn't hit pause or stop because we started receiving bits of information about this virus and possibly its origins.
	So they need to go back and look at everything that was collected, not just from the military or the CIA or the FBI, but all 17 intelligence agencies that we have, including our global allies and partners, to see what they have collected, because a lot of times they get stuff we miss.
	And then someone needs to put that together and say, okay, what is an actual finished intelligence report look like based upon the global intelligence apparatus that we have?
	And does it answer the question?
	And that's your bar.
	And if we can direct with confidence, high confidence that that was what happened in that lab at the behest of the Chinese government, then you can say the bar has been met.
	Right.
	But again, so we've lost a lot a lot of that evidence has been destroyed from what we understand, right?
	I think so.
	Um from what's been reported out there, I think so.
	Uh, but that doesn't mean that there does isn't intelligence that exists uh that's within our reach or that we already have to shed light on the issue you're talking about.
	And that's what I'm saying they need to do.
	But they being this is how intelligence collected.
	The White House gives a directive on what's important, and then the intelligence community s shifts its postures to collect on those lanes that are important to them.
	So I don't know if this White House has said to the intelligence community, hey, the origins of the COVID virus are now priority A. Please put more assets and resources on that target.
	Well, they I mean, I I do believe there's nine, you know, President Biden said 90 days, basically, that he wants to have a report, I believe, at the end of 90 days.
	I mean, I don't know what he need 990 days for.
	We've been collecting on this for 13 months, 14 months, whatever it is.
	Um, it exists.
	There's been PDBs produced, presidential daily briefings produced by career intelligence officials every week since this outbreak occurred and before that.
	So it doesn't take 90 days to look at it.
	It does take 90 days to look at it and allow people to possibly manipulate what they're finding to suit a narrative that Fauci and others have been espousing for over a year.
	Well, so what do you think it will take to get to the truth for for the public to know the truth?
	Well, two things, right?
	The public has to care, which I think they might start be starting to actually care now because it's been the mainstream media's narrative has been totally shattered that President Trump was out of his mind when he said this could have possibly occurred inside a lab.
	So that's step one.
	Step two, public care, public desire to know what happened.
	And I think we're approaching that.
	And I would actually add one step, so it's a three-step thing.
	Um the government, our elected officials have to marshal the resources necessary to continue intelligence collection on it, go to our global community partners and say, what do you have on it?
	Because we know you guys have abilities in that region that we don't necessarily have, bring it together, and then find a way to tell the American public.
	And I'm not saying I'm not saying disclose sensitive intelligence techniques and collection.
	We we we don't do that.
	But we do inform the American public, we owe that to them as a government as to answer the questions that you're posing today.
	Um and we can protect sources and methods.
	We've done it time and time again, over and over again, whether it's Russia Gate, whether it's Bin Laden, whether it's Baghdadi, whether it's hostages or what have you, we can find a way to tell the American public what happened with confidence.
	I also imagine there might be, you know, at least among some, not much of an appetite to know because if it does turn out that this is really the truth, or this we you meet that high degree of confidence that you were describing, I I can't imagine the Chinese Communist Party will ever admit to this.
	Well, we don't need them to admit to it, right?
	Right, Jan.
	I mean, I'm not I'm not living in Perry Mason land, and we're not gonna have a gotcha moment where they say, Oh yeah, it was us, we did it.
	We we don't do that in 99% of the national security matters we investigate.
	We do the work.
	We go out and collect, we go out and synthesize that intelligence and produce it for our intelligence community and our leadership, and they have the responsibility to inform Congress and the American people.
	And I do expect that to happen in this case too.
	Now, here's where the one instance where it might not happen is as you said, what if it proves to be true and it proves to be an embarrassment for individuals in the government?
	Well, that's when cover-up happens.
	And you saw that time and time again in the Russia Gate and Fizergate scandals uh that plague the the country for the last four or five years.
	So you're gonna need someone willing to fight the fight in Congress and the media to challenge the government on this.
	You know, there's this other question that's really been on my mind.
	Um of the things that we taught we touched on this a little bit in the previous episode.
	One of the things that essentially we saw is that a number of very prominent scientists, even in very, very prestigious journals, went out and basically said, it's definitely natural.
	Right?
	It's definitely definitely not from a lab, right?
	So and this was in, you know, some of the biggest journals in the world, basically, this type of information was published.
	So now we're kind of in this situation where, at least to my eye, a number of experts, people are scratching their heads wondering how well how is it that these experts could have could have said this, you know, given what given what everyone essentially is coming to understand now.
	I think it's just another example of they they didn't want President Trump to be right.
	They just unfortunately the media has gotten to such a point that it's infiltrated so many aspects of society to include professional medical um experts.
	And they just some of those individuals couldn't stand the possibility that we actually did the work we were charged to do under President Trump and under Rick Rennell at the DNI and under Johnny Ratcliffe at the DNI.
	And I think that that talks to the degradation of confidence that maybe approximately 50% of the world has with the media, maybe more, right?
	And I think at the time that's why these folks were coming out saying, no, no, it's definitely not from a lab.
	And I don't know where they were getting that from because I know we had access to intelligence they did that they definitely did not.
	So when they start saying things like that, it's reckless, it's careless, and it's also intentionally misleading the American public.
	And that's causes a lot of problems.
	Um, And we really need to get past the political issues of who was in charge and figure out what happened and tell the American people what happened.
	So this entrenched, you know, there's this there is a bit of a crisis and you know, sort of really understanding what is true, right?
	We're seeing that in the media.
	But when you have, you know, people who are ostensibly, you know, the ostent ostensibly the academics, the scientists shouldn't be particularly political, should be focused on the science, should be focused.
	There's a, you know, this, and this to me, this kind of entrenches this crisis.
	Are the people that are charged with figuring things out actually telling us the truth?
	Well, seemingly not in this case, right?
	Because you had all these medical experts going out and saying it's definitely with confidence, for sure, 100% not from my lab or not from this is not the cause, this is not the origin.
	I don't know where they got such fidelity from.
	I really don't.
	They could have called us.
	We have lots of private public sector relationships, especially with experts in fields like biomedical um hazardous materials that the government has a lot of expertise in, but so does the private sector.
	And we have those relationships, and they could have come to us.
	And that's just another example of their recklessness, their intentional recklessness by not doing so, by not engaging the US government, just going out there and positing a theory that they knew the media would print hand over fist because they were the ones saying it, and it was in contravention to what President Trump was saying.
	So there's a reckoning in this area now.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	There has to be.
	Yeah.
	Well, then, and and and there is, and that's of course, you know, I think many people would say it's uh it's it's it's a positive thing.
	Um, but in a broader sense, you know, how do we start repairing this this sort of crisis of you know, epistemological crisis, I guess you call it?
	I don't know.
	Yeah, well, I think some people might unfortunately still call it fake news, the reckoning that you're talking about, right?
	Because it's talking about fixing a narrative that they thought was already right and they wanted to believe so much that they've now just motored past this, and thankfully, because of the Epic Times and journalists like yourself, like people are actually starting to care about getting duped by the mainstream media.
	Now, most of the mainstream media is rolling past this thing, and again, just firing arrows back at people in the administration and not holding the likes of Fauci accountable when they interview him on TV.
	And he has no problem going on the media, so why doesn't he just sit down with everybody and face the questions that he's supposed to?
	He's a government official.
	He should be asked the questions, especially for the amount of money we're paying that guy.
	Um, but the reckoning, I hope it's the start, because it needs to happen in not just the origins of the Wuhan um incident, but everything else, everything else on national security, on economic issues, on trade, on our relationships with foreign partners.
	We are owed that by our government officials, and it um it seems to be lacking at this time.
	So maybe this is the first one to go.
	So I guess we'll see how all of this unfolds.
	I'm I'm very, very, very curious to see how all this unfolds, and of course, we'll be reporting on it carefully.
	Um, you know, one thing that kind of struck me was there was this paper I remember from very early on, where a number of Indian scientists actually had put together a paper.
	And now there's a number of reports of this nature that basically, you know, strongly suggest there is some bit was some genetic manipulation based on how they assessed the code of this virus.
	Okay.
	And so, and these, I think there was a report in an Indian Sun Sunday Guardian Live recently, basically talking about how these nine scientists were vilified, you know, um, and you know, basically almost kind of blacklisted because of because of doing this study, and now they're kind of they're there's some sort of process of vindication for them, potentially.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I think they're they're everyone's kind of looking, they were forced to retract this.
	Yeah, this this study, right?
	So that's one thing.
	The other thing I'm thinking about again, thinking about India, is uh there's a second wave happening in India, and you know, there's a lot of Chatter um in India just about you know this just this seems so weird like how why is it that we have this uh you know second wave and you know again I don't know if we call them conspiracy theories,
	but all sorts of people are wondering like could this be deliberate from from China somehow, or you know it's uh it's it's interesting.
	Look, those are two great examples of one, returning to the former, India is a great ally of the United States and always has been.
	And so, and they're also one of the leading global leaders in medical matters, medical issues.
	They have some of the most brilliant doctors and physicians on planet earth.
	So we should be listening to them and seeing where they got that intelligence.
	A. B, they're also our strongest counterpunch to China in the region.
	And if the Chinese government is using them to or punishing them for being our ally, then America should even more so be backing the Indian government and the Indian people.
	Now, here's the thing about the second wave, right?
	India's actually reporting its COVID outbreaks accurately.
	China's not.
	Okay, you're talking about the two largest countries in the world, each with over a billion point one million people, right?
	There is no way the Chinese numbers on the COVID numbers within their border are accurate.
	They're just not.
	That's not something you need to be a medical expert to figure out.
	And so that question has been largely ignored by the media.
	Why now they're all of a sudden focused, hyper-focused on India and its second wave, and that's good in terms of the attention, hopefully leads to more aid for India.
	But why aren't we asking the Chinese government as for its actual numbers on COVID?
	Because it started there.
	So one, they won't tell us how it actually started, and they're never going to, I agree with you.
	But why don't you actually tell us how badly it's infected your populace and your population?
	And then maybe the world can start trusting what you tell us about, you know, uh national security matters of consequence, such as the origins of COVID.
	No, and we didn't we you know early on, we we got some uh basically documents that showed that you know, gross gross underreporting on certain localized districts.
	The actual data is very hard to get, you know, especially on uh on a on a large scale.
	But yes, it are certainly our our own investigations showed you know very much exactly what you're talking about.
	Cash, any final thoughts?
	Uh I I look forward to continuing this conversation, and it's gonna be really interesting what happens with uh the uh intelligence that hopefully comes out for the American people on the origins of Wuhan and and um and what Dr. Fauci and others were saying, whether it was true or not.

▲