Kash's Corner - Kash’s Corner: Dr. Fauci Attacked Trump for Lab Leak Theory Despite Not Having Access to the Intelligence

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 10, 2021 - Kash's Corner

27:51

Kash’s Corner: Dr. Fauci Attacked Trump for Lab Leak Theory Despite Not Having Access to the Intelligence

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome everyone to Cash's Corner, an American Thought Leaders spin-off series with uh Cash Patel and myself, Janja Kelleck.
	Cash, we're gonna talk today about well, of course, the lab leak theory, the Wuhan lab leak theory.
	And all sorts of intrigue around this.
	For starters, we're gonna talk about how what's the evidence?
	What was the evidence that we've known for a year, even, right?
	And then we're also gonna talk about how a lot of people seem to miss this, and other people, including even scientists said, no, absolutely not, this is impossible when it was clearly ridiculous to make that statement.
	And finally, we're gonna do talk a little bit about uh how to deal with this.
	Well, I'm excited.
	Thanks for having me back, and I'm glad that someone's paying attention to the Wuhan lab theory.
	And it looks like it's just yet another example of how the mainstream media got it totally wrong day in and day out, and only recently are starting to come to uh terms with their uh incorrect reporting.
	Well, yeah, so we actually had our uh a documentary tracking down the origins of Wuhan coronavirus back in April a year ago, which you know laid out kind of the evidence for different ideas, and of course, you know, the lab leak theory was a very, very plausible scenario given all the realities, and actually, you know, this is a great opportunity.
	Maybe you can, you know, you were actually you know looking at some of this stuff a year ago.
	So, you know, what what is the evidence?
	Yeah, so Rick Rennell and I were running the um intelligence community at the director, office of the director of national intelligence for President Trump at the time um the Wuhan uh lab and the COVID-19 breakout started happening.
	So we had access to our most exquisite intelligence, which I won't get into.
	But what I can tell you is we saw it, Intel coming in, we made sure we were responsible for briefing the president in the president's daily briefing about the information we were gathering.
	And the president made the right decision back then to ban travel from China, if you recall, which I think was the right decision, and he was called, of course, a racist for doing that.
	And then the rest of the world followed suit for the next year and a half.
	So that's where it started with us back in probably February-ish of 2020.
	Yeah.
	No, yes, and you know, so recently uh uh Secretary Pompeo, uh, he actually former Secretary Pompeo, he noted that just even over a year ago, he mentioned on a pub popular TV show that uh this was the most he felt this was the most likely scenario of the lab leak, but he wasn't he wasn't treated very nicely.
	Well, he wasn't, and of course, President Trump wasn't, as you recall, um, you know, uh one of the mainstream media outlets said, you know, Fauci completely destroys Trump's theory on the Wuhan lab leak.
	And I'm not really sure how Fauci would be able to do that since I know who had access to the intelligence at the time, and he didn't.
	Um, uh it's obviously fast forward another year and a half, and now all of a sudden the theory that President Trump floated um seems to be more and more of a confirmed belief.
	And I agree with Secretary Pompeo that on in terms of what my belief is and the origins of the virus.
	Well, I mean, and we're of course we're talking in terms of plausible scenarios because there's there is no smoking gun evidence uh and it's actually kind of very, very difficult to find without the Chinese Communist Party releasing what it has.
	And Frank, but a lot of that from what we believe, I think, has been destroyed, actually, that evidence from the early days.
	Well, look, it's it's no secret that collecting information and intelligence in China is one of the hardest things for the United States to do, period.
	Um it is what we call a hard target.
	And basically, it's one of the environments that makes it very difficult, as you said, to get absolute fidelity, unlike some other places that we operate in.
	So we were able to piece things together, and our job at the DNI was to brief the president and his cabinet and the intelligence officials in charge of the country, and they were going to make the best decisions possible.
	I think they did.
	And this is just another glaring example of since President Trump said it, it couldn't be right, and they're going to Lambast him for a year plus, and now they'll forget that they said that and say, oh, since Fauci said it, we're good to go.
	It must be true.
	Well, no, it's very interesting because it was uh it was notable that uh Dr. Fauci actually, you know, changed his mind on this somewhat recently.
	A lot there's a lot being written about that.
	Yeah, I mean, he's one of the biggest flip-floppers there is.
	I mean, he probably should just be a politician at this point.
	So let's quickly look look at this evidence.
	I mean, one of the things that always struck me was this is, you know, this is a P4 biolab, right?
	I think the only one in China, it's the the Chinese military operates there.
	We know that there's a a scientist called Dick Dubb the Batwoman who specifically works on bat coron was working on gain of function experiments with bat coronaviruses.
	I mean, at that lab, and there are no bats around to offer such a coronavirus.
	But the, I mean, I'm just this is I'm just sort of naming some things from memory.
	But so, and this gain of function experimentation actually is something that the US isn't too into.
	Yeah, so basically what you outlined is in general terms, it's one of the most sophisticated labs on planet Earth that's housed in Wuhan, China.
	And there's those levels of the different one, two, three, four labs because they operate at a the higher you go, the more secure the compound is, and the more rare biochemical hazardous materials that they experiment on within.
	That's the purpose of that type of lab.
	So, unless you can actually get in there or get the Chinese government to tell you what happened when you're in there, um, you're not gonna get the whole picture.
	And that's been the problem.
	But what we're able to do because of our intelligence officials and our and our defense community is able to establish with confidence what we believe happened.
	And I think that's what President Trump was saying a year and a half ago, and now it's proving out to be it was true then, and it's likely proving to be true now.
	So there's also this element that the NIH, National Institute of Health, was uh through uh the Eco Health Alliance, which it was funding, was actually funding some research at this lab, right?
	So yeah, so that so those types of labs are funded through multi-state actors around the world, but the US obviously, um, just like the UN, the U.S. funds a large portion of those bills because we foot it.
	Um, and you know, I think that's one of the things President Trump was trying to get our allies to kick in more money on, just like NATO.
	And in terms of the fidelity of where that money specifically went for the Wuhan lab, I'm not too familiar with, but I do know we funded it, and someone should be looking at why we're paying that lab if they're not giving us information.
	I mean, basically it's like paying the Iranians money to operate their nuclear program and then not having access to the intelligence.
	Well, no, and but the thing is, especially since it's a known fact that this lab is associated with the Chinese military, which we know is a fact is working on bioweapons programs and that gain of function experiments, and by the way, just for everyone, I'm not saying this is a bioweapon by any stretch of the imagination.
	However, the potential for using gain of function research to develop bioweapony, that exists.
	So you mix all these things together, that's not a pretty picture.
	No, and you would think that that's something that you know uh this Congress would be wanting to spend its oversight time and efforts on, but um they can't seem to make that a priority.
	And um, I think you raise a fantastic point, and someone really needs to look at where the United States money is going into this lab and what they're doing with it, especially with the level of biohazardous materials that operate within that lab.
	Um, any further thoughts on just you know how this uh uh evidence kind of plays out for people.
	Well, I think um the more people that speak to it, the more people that'll pay attention to it and call out the past inconsistencies in the media, and that's one way we correct um, you know, how the fraud occurs in the media.
	But in terms of the subject matter, I think the best way, and one of the only ways is to get Congress and the United States government to take a firm stance against China on the origins of the COVID values and whether or not the Wuhan lab was entirely at fault or partially at fault.
	I think what they've done to the world, they owe us an answer.
	I mean, absolutely.
	And of course, you know, you're you we've spoken to, but not directly to this whole cover-up that the Chinese Communist Party engaged in, you know, misleading the WHO, you know, I think that would be the nicest way you could put what happened, but we don't we don't really know what happened, but at the at least, you know, grossly misleading the WHO.
	And then also this whole element of uh, you know, as Gordon Chang describes, kind of weaponizing the virus by saying that there won't be any movement of people who have the virus within China, but you know, screaming bloody murder when there's actually movement out movement is restricted outside of China, right?
	Right, and I think you I think you raise a great point between the the WHO who was always taking a position that was in opposite of President Trump, just so they could do that without actually putting out intelligence to support their positions, and then the media would just trumpet that.
	And I think that's one of the glaring problems.
	The other problem with Wuhan is that the Chinese government, we know knew of information at certain times preceding February, March of 2020, and they failed to share that with the with our allies and partners and they could have tamped down on this at the outset, but they chose not to do it intentionally.
	Well, there's certainly there were uh reports of, and this I think this was recently in the Wall Street Journal of there being uh in, I think in November, a number of researchers that fell ill with uh, you know, very under very suspicious circumstances.
	Um it'd be interesting to see what happened with them.
	It's like the uh the scientists that go into the nuclear reactors in Iran, and um, you know, we don't find out what really happens.
	Fascinating.
	Well, so let's talk about, let's go to kind of to our next part here.
	Let's talk about, you know, how and I don't think it's just the media.
	I mean, all sorts of, let's say, actors in this in this treated this lab, Wuhan lab origin theory as like absolute insanity.
	Sure.
	Right.
	And there were, I mean, there were there was a I remember there was a Lancet paper and there was a Nature Health paper.
	And I remember even one of the people that I was talking to actually wrote to Nature Health saying, you guys can't say definitively that this is natural.
	That's that's just preposterous, right?
	Like it just didn't make any sense.
	These are these are you know some of the top publications for medicine in the world, right?
	So, you know, there there's that.
	No, you're totally right.
	You're you're 100% right.
	It's definitely not just the media.
	To have the media coupled with the institutions you outlined, very respectable medical journals and institutions, coupled with the politicians on Capitol Hill, you know, that trifecta to push a narrative that is false is very powerful, and it's what most of the world ends up hearing, and that's the problem.
	I don't think it's any one of those individually, but when you put those three together, it's a very powerful narrative, and it's hard to combat, even if it is false.
	Do you think people remember that at this point as this, you know, I there's when okay, I'm looking at various social media and so forth, and I'm seeing, you know, a lot of journalists basically I I think backpedaling is a nice way of putting, oh my goodness, we were we were mistaken, this kind of thing.
	I mean, I certainly I can imagine people that were just simply had by this because of the strength of the conviction that this lab origin has no bearing, that it can only be seen as a conspiracy theory.
	Maybe, I mean, I don't know, you're probably uh you're probably nicer than I am uh on some media outlets.
	Uh I don't I just think it's another example of I think some people in journalists probably just got it wrong and um their right to correct themselves.
	But I don't think the majority of the mainstream media did.
	It's just another example of them intentionally running with a story, a narrative that runs counter to whatever President Trump was saying, and now much, much later it's proven to be false.
	And none of those guys are saying we got it wrong back then.
	Other, you know, so that it just unfortunately continues to torch journalistic integrity and it makes it harder for the American people to trust what they're reading.
	Well, and I want to touch on this a little bit, because I think there is this, you know, I've discussed this with numerous people on my show.
	Um, you know, there's this sort of crisis of uh confidence in institutions, right?
	And that you you just this what what can I really believe now what nature health and you know the Lancet are telling me I I need to.
	I I need to be able to believe that that what's in there is mostly true, right?
	But with with things like this, where even with someone with my very basic, you know, education and biology, it was clear you couldn't say it as definitively as it was being said.
	Like some of these papers were look more like a sort of political discussion than uh than a the scientific discussion.
	I think you're absolutely right.
	And that's what the American public used to be able to rely on is some of these institutions to tell them because that's where the experts are.
	They're at NIH, they're in the United States government, and we rely on those institutions to inform the rest of the American public.
	But I think their credibility has just been shattered, and I don't know that um anything other than a total revamping of the media system as it currently stands can bring us back to where we were uh pre, say 2015.
	Well, you know, and you're talking about the media revamping, I'm curious what that might look like in your mind, but but the other part, of course, was social media.
	Like I remember our documentary, which again, you know, drew no drew no conclusions, offered the available evidence, right?
	I think it was actually quite important in helping people at least some people understand that this is a this is a plausible, a plausible theory when you it was you know tinfoil hat realm to do so.
	I mean that our documentary was slapped with one of these uh fact check labels, right?
	By the way, and the the crazy thing was, and this was um non-seafood.
	Uh Cheryl Atkison noted noticed this that basically the person who had done who ended up doing the fact check on the originally it was like a generic fact check that didn't even make sense.
	So I won't aside from that, the person who actually did the fact it was someone who is actually had done work with this Wuhan lab, which was just kind of almost hard to hard to fathom, right?
	And then and of course Peter Dashek, right, who's the president of the Eco Health Alliance, he was one of the most active proponents of the conspiracy lab origin as a conspiracy theory.
	So the people with kind of vested interests in not having that theory work were or potentially vested interests.
	Okay, let's say that.
	We're basically saying uh that that this is a conspiracy theory, the most vocal.
	And here's the easiest thing that the Biden administration could now do.
	They're in charge.
	They could immediately issue an order to the intelligence community to say, collect everything we have on this, bring it out to uh the White House, and then let's go ahead and declassify some, not all of it.
	You can't declassify everything, or at least let's tell the American people what we know and what is based on.
	And they can do that, but they're choosing not to.
	But maybe maybe they'll listen to our conversation.
	I mean, uh listen, this is this is this is a big reason why I do these shows in the first place, right?
	Well, they do that and I'm buying dinner.
	Okay, well, no, I I well, I I hope it works out for us.
	Yeah, but so but there is this whole phenomenon of you know, big tech, so to speak, right?
	And they were it wasn't just Facebook that I was thinking of at this Facebook fact check, but it wasn't just Facebook, it was multiple j face, you know, social media giants basically deciding that whatever the again the correct narrative is that that is what is the that's a fact.
	But that's that's actually an anti-science perspective from my perspective.
	Well, yeah, the the the social media hasn't helped.
	It's another piece of what we've been talking about that allows um misinformation to spread uh violently uh just based on your political ethos.
	And I don't think they've been helpful to the conversation on this topic or many others that we've been having, and that's why President Trump was so adamant against getting rid of Section 230.
	Um but that's a different deal.
	Sure, sure.
	Well, no, so you know, uh recently uh uh Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law this first kind of state law in the country to try to counter big tech censorship, right?
	And one of the things he said, there was a there was a question from the from the from the journalist pool, and the question was what about is this law uh kind of the suggestion was is this law purely to help President Trump, former President Trump, right?
	And that and one of the things he noted, I thought it was very curious because he said, well, okay, so you know, he was Trump was deplatformed, but the Ayateola comment comeny is still on.
	Yeah.
	Is isn't that isn't that odd?
	I mean, it's the it's the perfect example.
	The the leader of the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism is on Twitter, and the leader, the former president of the United States is not.
	That's juxtaposition should tell anyone with a brain um how far askew social media has gone, uh, like the likes of Twitter and and whatnot.
	So, and I think uh, you know, uh Governor DeSantis's bill is a step in the right direction.
	It's going to face some challenges legally in the courts, and we can get into that, but um it forces the conversation.
	He's the first governor in the country to sign such a law, and it's going to force the social media companies into the litigation section and say whether or not what they're doing is what uh our founders envisioned and Congress envisioned when they gave them certain protections.
	So can let's let's let's take this law, okay, this new law.
	Um can this actually help with the I guess, you know, censorship and narrative creation or narrative enforcement, if you will, that seem to be very common among these big big tech giants.
	Will that actually change that or or create incentives to change that?
	It it might.
	I mean, I think so.
	What we have to remember is um, you know, and I'm not a constitutional law professor, but I was a former federal prosecutor for a long time.
	And you always learned about, you know, division of powers between the state and federal government and supremacy clause, what one trumps the other, basically.
	State law falls to a conflict in federal law, if federal law speaks to it.
	So what you have here, you have section 230 of the uh privacy act, it's a federal law, and you have Governor DeSantis's state law that are sort of in conflict with one another, and then you sort of have to discuss due process through the court systems, which is given to the states by way of the 14th Amendment.
	So that's why I think it's heading into the court systems.
	I think the Twitters and Facebooks and all that will challenge Governor DeSantis's law and at least force the judicial system to respond.
	And that's how you get conversations going and actual change.
	I don't know the outcome of that.
	So, you know, maybe maybe we can just outline a bit what this law actually does or try to do.
	I mean, one of the I noticed that there's I think it's like a hundred thousand dollar a day fine for someone that's been deplatformed, like a Floridian that's been deplatformed.
	So that's that's uh, you know, you have to, and I think their approach is correct because you have to hit these social media companies where it hurts, and the only thing they care about is making money more than anything else.
	And then second is censoring things that are politically convenient for them.
	So I think the 100,000 dollars a day is going to get their attention, those fines will be levied.
	Now, whether they're paid or not, I think is going to depend on the outcome of litigation.
	But at least it looks like Governor DeSantis willing to sign the law and willing to take them head on, and he's the first in the country to do it.
	Um so what else does this bill do?
	Yeah, so besides levying the fine for um, you know, if it's found in violation, what it forces the social media companies to do is justify in writing to the state of Florida why they deplanked or deplatformed or whatever you want to use, a company or a group on Twitter or on Facebook or what have you.
	And that's one step further than any state in the country is taking it, and it's definitely further than any federal government action has taken it.
	So, you know, Governor Stannis is leading the charge, it's it's gonna go to court, and um, you know, it's gonna be an interesting fight.
	One of the things that I'm most concerned about with big tech, to be frank, right, is that when let's say a slate of ideas or certain ideas I mean this this whole situation is a really great example of this because you know there's there's a legitimate discussion to be had, right?
	But if you sort of undermine the credibility of one of the arguments so profoundly that, you know, I think a significant portion of the populace just simply assumed it was a conspiracy theory.
	Sure.
	Right, because of what they'd heard from, you know, this all these different, you know, let's call it establishment uh uh uh institutions.
	You're kind of you it actually prevents you from really being able to get to the truth.
	Like I mean, uh it even if even if this it was a the truth is it is natural origin, right?
	That actually would could still would never help us gain uh uh I guess you know, just a solid sense that that's the case.
	Yeah, I mean, look, the best comparison is just recent history, and you know, people probably not like me bringing it up, but it's Russia Gate all over again, right?
	There's so many people, I mean, it has been thoroughly debunked by you.
	If you don't want to believe the House Intelligence Report because the Republicans did it, or the Senate Intelligence Report because the Republicans did it.
	There's an inspector general's report um that clearly came out and levied harsh, harsh criticism of the way that was done.
	But most people don't care.
	They have their political viewpoint, so they just throw that aside.
	And that's the unfortunate reality that we're in right now, and I see that playing out again with the Wuhan um origins that we were talking about, and even to a certain degree with Governor Santis's legislation, the the basis for it is because they were selectively kicking off people, and there's no repercussion for it under the law because of Section 230 and the Privacy Act, it doesn't treat the Twitters and the Facebooks like it tweet like the law treats the New York Times, the Foxes and the CNN's.
	So this is I mean to me it's a bigger thing.
	It's it's it's an assault on free inquiry, right?
	Like in this in in this case, it's interesting.
	Okay, uh one of my observations is that the the general narrative on China of all things seems to be the of the narratives, it seems to be uh the mo the closest to reality by by a long shot that I'm that I'm aware of, like the sort of the the what you see in the legacy media and sort of I'm very grateful for that, right?
	Because but the Chinese Communist Party is is you know uh a genocidal dictatorship by many, many uh you know, pieces of evidence.
	So just very, very strong pieces of evidence.
	Um so thank goodness.
	But um so in this case, right, the narrative is shifting and all sorts of people are doing their gymnastics to to try to say, well, you know, I didn't really know, I was mistaken.
	Good, okay.
	We can at least we can have this discussion, at least we can try to get to the truth.
	Well, it took us look, I'll bring you to another example in China, which you're obviously very familiar with, um, and it's the unfortunate treatment of the Uyghurs in in Northwest China, right?
	It took a massive global effort for the world to actually recognize, and some people still don't, that they're committing genocide and have, you know, the equivalent of modern day concentration camps for tens and thousands of hundreds of thousands of people in China, right?
	We said it under the Trump administration and we couldn't get people to pay attention.
	And the Wuhan origin is just another example of something in China that we said under the Trump administration, and we couldn't get the world, or they didn't want to pay attention to what we were saying because it wasn't convenient for them.
	And now we're finally maybe getting to a point, a break point where they'll say, okay, this is yet another problem with the Chinese government and how they handle uh uh handled a global pandemic.
	Let's peer into the future a little bit here as we finish up.
	Um in in this sort of situation, would you expect, you know, future conservative leaders to be attacked in in a similar way and as uh continue to have this sort of huge problem at trying to kind of weigh different perspectives or different evidence and try to actually understand what the truth of any given scenario is.
	Well, I think Governor Santis is an ideal example.
	Look, he's done an outstanding job in Florida, and any time he comes up with new legislation or uh good measures for his state, he's immediately tied to President Trump.
	And that's what the media does.
	And they'll just say, oh, he's just parroting for President Trump.
	And I think that's unfair to him and President Trump at the same time, and and any other conservative uh leader out there.
	Because it's an attempt to smear by association.
	It's not addressing the issue.
	It's not talking about what's good for my state or my town uh versus what's good for the country.
	It's just talking about let's just group everybody together and we'll just you know, we'll just push it off.
	There was a 60 Minutes episode that came out, uh sort of alleging uh that uh that the governor had sort of improperly distributed uh you know vaccines, so to speak.
	The vaccine distribution was done improperly and you know, all sorts of local people.
	The response from within the state was very bipartisan.
	No, that's a that's a perfect example because that lady who was literally a career criminal um came out and CNN parroted her around like she was speaking gospel on that subject.
	And it turns out just recently it was totally disproven.
	The information she was peddling was a political narrative.
	Once again, it cost the American people the ability to believe in what the media was putting out.
	And just last week or maybe the week before, it was released that what she had done was possibly criminal, and now she's under investigation yet again.
	And everything she said about Governor DeSantis pushing out false information regarding the coronavirus turned out to be false.
	And just to be clear, that I think what what she was doing was she wasn't talking about the vaccines, she was more just basically saying the data that the government is putting out is false, just for the benefit of our readers.
	No, that's uh that's a great point.
	Yeah.
	Um, any final thoughts, Cash?
	No, this is fun.
	I love doing this.
	And I'm having tons of fun as well.

▲