Kash’s Corner: Clinton Campaign Lawyers Now Defending Steele Dossier Source Igor Danchenko; Latest Fauci Email Dump
“What you have, at least optically, is the Clinton campaign nested into the [Igor] Danchenko camp and his representation. So all the information John Durham turns over in discovery, they could conceivably give over to Hillary Clinton.”According to a recent court filing by John Durham’s team, two Clinton campaign lawyers are representing Steele dossier source Igor Danchenko, the Russian analyst who was indicted by a grand jury in November on five false statement charges.In this episode, Kash breaks down the potential conflicts of interest this creates. And we also take a look at a batch of newly released emails that show how Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, and his colleague Dr. Anthony Fauci worked to discredit the Great Barrington Declaration, which opposed lockdown policies and promoted focused protection of the vulnerable.To all our wonderful Kash’s Corner fans, we wish you a joyous Christmas and a Happy New Year! We will be taking a one-week break for the holidays and we’ll be returning with more exciting content in 2022!
Hey everybody and welcome to our holiday special of Cash's Corner.
Thanks for tuning in this entire year and we hope you enjoy our Christmas special.
And yeah, so to start here, I think we do need to say Merry Christmas to everybody.
Happy New Year to your families, to your loved ones, to everybody.
This is a very difficult year or has been a very difficult year for everybody.
And I really hope that everyone gets a chance to celebrate a little bit, find those things that that that perhaps uh they don't look at too often, especially if things are looking a little grim and and celebrate those.
And perhaps watch our episode on Christmas Eve and take it in with your family to brighten your day.
Absolutely.
Well, and so you know it's very interesting.
It seems like uh special counsel Durham has a Christmas present for I I guess.
Maybe for me, I'll take it.
Yeah.
Well, so it it's really interesting.
He he, you know, Friday afternoon, you know, low news cycle, as is typical of him, no fanfare.
There's he issues a filing, and in the filing we learn a number of things, which we'll talk about here, but one of the things we learn is simply that Igor Denchenko, one of the indicted people that he indicted, is actually being represented by the same lawyers that represent the Hillary Clinton camp 2016 campaign.
I mean, fascinating, right?
It's a shocking development, and I would say if it was the only one in the last five year saga of everything that was Russia Gate, but is obviously we've shown to be the largest organized criminal enterprise.
Um it's no longer shocking, unfortunately.
It's just more uh tragic um sort of application of law and fact and bias in the Department of Justice and the FBI, and it just continues.
And I thank God that John Durham's on the case to help us keep our law enforcement uh members in check and also equally as important, prosecute cases under the law and apply the facts wherever they lead, irrespective of who is possibly involved, i.e.
a former senator, a former presidential candidate, a former Secretary of State, and so many others.
So I'm glad that he um is taking his action in a measured fashion, and he's not taken to the media as we've talked about previously.
He just doesn't do that.
I don't even think he has a spokesperson.
Um and if he does, all they say is no comment.
But he does talk where he's legally and permissibly allowed to talk, which is his filings in federal court.
And we've talked about the indictments in the past of Sussman and Denchenko, and I urge your viewers to, if you haven't seen it, go check out those episodes.
We did some fantastic deep dives into those indictments.
But um he did give us another pleading on Friday night.
Well, no, and so going back to the Sussman indictment very briefly, we did learn the identity of Dolan, right?
Somebody who seems like he was the main source for Danchenko, right?
Um and what's what's very interesting about this is that nobody knew about it.
And at the same time, this person was also deeply connected with the 2016 Clinton campaign and others.
Yeah, no, you're absolutely right.
Look, and uh I as the guy who ran the Russia Gate investigation on House Intel had never heard of Charles Dolan.
That's a little shocking for someone who was supposed to have been given all of the FBI, all of the DOJ, all the intelligence community information regarding uh how the FISA was obtained, how the steel dossier was procured and everything.
And that just goes to show you that the FBI and DOJ failed to comply with congressional valid congressional subpoenas we issued for documents because had they produced everything, they would have produced the documents that John Durham found.
But at least thankfully he's on the case.
And why it's highlighting is because it seems that the Russia Gate investigation and the criminal enterprise of John Durham's Unfolding starts and begins and ends with Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
And that becomes more and more true as we reveal more and more information.
Charles Done's another example.
A former Clinton operative, a former Clinton campaign advisor, a former ally of hers in the State Department, is now been shown to be an individual who, we don't know if it was at the behest of the Clinton campaign, but it stretches credulity to say otherwise, was feeding information on behalf of the Clinton campaign to Christopher Steele for their false dossier that was falsely presented by the FBI and I believe knowingly so to get a FISA warrant on then candidate Trump.
So yet another member of the Clinton campaign or Clinton world was shown to be involved in this corrupt um I don't know what even there's a new word for it or not but this I want to say criminal enterprise and uh that was a suspend indictment.
And then we move on to Danchenko and our latest pleading from John Durham this past Friday night.
What struck me as I was looking at this, and I want to thank our friend Technofog for actually drawing attention to this, because I didn't know it had come down, was how did this actually happen?
Because Danchenko did drop his previous council and retain this new council.
And, you know, did this council approach him?
Did he approach them?
And the other question is, like, is there a possibility that, you know, this could facilitate an information flow that...
you know an an expected information flow.
You're right.
I mean we're we'll get into the the the last bit of it later.
Basically what you have at least optically is the Clinton campaign nested into the Danchenko camp and his representation so all the information John Durham terms over in discovery they could conceivably give over to Hillary Clinton.
We'll circle back to that and more detail and why that's a problem.
And in you know you raise a point that's very interesting.
Danchenko was represented by someone else and then at some point in time these folks came along and said we're going to represent you.
Now what's the nature of that?
Are they doing it pro bono?
Is someone else paying that fee?
Because um as someone who's been subpoenaed by Congress I can tell you from my personal experience it's expensive to hire lawyers to do that kind of work.
Igor Danchenkov is criminally indicted in federal court it's even more expensive to do that kind of work.
Maybe he's a wealthy individual can retain whatever counsel he wants but the reason I became a public defender and then later you know a prosecutor was because of one of the most important rights in our Constitution is the right to counsel.
And it's not just any counsel it's the right to counsel of your choosing if you can so afford and if you can't then the public defenders come in.
And at least your your you're provided great representation that way.
Igor Danchenkov has now chosen his counsel but there's some rules in the Constitution um and as interpreted by the Supreme Court that talk about conflicts of interest and we'll get into all that.
And that's what this latest pleading is all about.
Igor Danchenkov has this new set of lawyers or relatively new set of lawyers who have come in and they have for years as best as I can tell represented the Hillary Clinton campaign who was at the heart of and instigated the entire Russia gate conspiracy.
So it's problematic for many many many reasons and there are a number of legal hurdles that the court must adjudicate properly in order to satisfy both the Fourth, fifth and sixth amendments of the Constitution and the canon of ethics which we'll get into too which govern how lawyers are to behave before federal judge.
You know you you hear about conflict of interest a lot on television, right?
Right and and so forth.
And so but what from what I understand right we're not just looking at you know actual demonstrated conflicts of interest.
This is conflicts of interest that may exist that right?
Look and it applies to judges too.
The same rules the ethics apply for conflicts apply to judges as they do to lawyers that are appearing before the judge.
For instance many of these federal judges come from private law firms, deep private law firm backgrounds who represented some big Fortune 500 companies, some high wealth individuals.
If they later became a judge that judge has to recuse himself for matters forever relating to that company that his his private law firm represented in the past or that he or she himself represented in the past even in peace not because there is an actual conflict of interest but just because there could be and I've appeared before federal judges who've recused himself on situations like that.
Actually I don't think we've ever talked about this, but when we first subpoenaed um the bank records of fusion GPS when we were running the Russia gate investigation in the fall of 2017 I believe we had to go to federal court to get those records.
The first judge in that cycle after a month or two recused herself from the proceedings.
And that's because there was a conflict of interest.
Now she doesn't have to disclose to us what that conflict was we're only left to guess that it might have to do with and she came from a big law firm in her past and it might have to do with uh a a client or an institution they represented.
So it happens.
It happens in major cases, it happens in cases you don't hear about, it happens to judges.
But in this instance, it's not about the judge, it's about the lawyer, lawyers.
So what are these potential conflicts of interest here?
I mean, it would be bizarre if information were able to flow in this in this direction, as we uh just mentioned.
There's many, and the rules are governed by not just the law and the constitution as we talked about, but the canon of ethics.
And they require um that any uh prosecution and defense attorney um have a free set of conflict of or be conflict-free with certain stipulations.
And what they're saying is in this instance, John Durham's pleading is saying, because there's a Supreme Court case that sort of governs this, the prosecution has a duty to affirmatively inform the court of a possible conflict of interest.
And that's what John Durham's done in this case.
He, John Durham, is saying through his pleading that we think the individuals that now represent Igor Denchenkov, who also represent the Clint Hillary Clinton campaign, could have numerous conflicts of interest, not just the information flow.
So he laid out some of them, and it's not up to the prosecution to investigate those on their own.
They can request assistance, and I think appropriately did so to the judge because the judge has wider latitude to talk to defense counsel and even go what we call ex parte if need be, and that's just to bring in defense counsel alone so as not to divulge the defense of the defendant, which is to remain private.
That that's never have to be divulged to the prosecution.
So the judge has a little more leeway in how he investigates the potential conflict of interest.
But John Durham has now put the discharge on notice that he should take those uh matters and those inquiries and see where they lead.
And namely, the number one thing that comes to my mind in terms of whether there's a potential conflict of interest is witnesses, right?
The these guys who represent Denchenkov represent the Hillary Clinton campaign.
How many people in the Hillary Clinton campaign universe do they represent?
Did they represent five years ago, four years ago, three years ago?
Is Igor Danchenkov going to call one of those people as a witness in his trial?
That's a potential conflict of interest.
I don't know Igor Danchenkoff's defense, only he and his attorneys do.
Are those lawyers going to be shaded by their past representation of some of these said witnesses in their current representation of Denchenkov?
Are they going to be biased because they previously have a relationship with one of the witnesses that could be called?
And it's not necessary that that witness has to be called.
Is the government going to call one of those witnesses?
Let's put the defense aside wholly is John Durham saying I might call witnesses A, B, and C, and you represented A and B, and now you represent the defendant.
It's a potential conflict of interest, which basically what the judge has to safeguard against is a reversible error.
And a conflict of interest and a potential conflict of interest is almost once it's established, it's an automatic reversal.
Um so if if he was convicted and this matter wasn't adjudicated properly, the appeals court will look at it and say, why didn't anyone look at this conflict of interest?
Which is why it's so critical at this juncture for him to adjudicate.
And we can get into how you deal with an actual conflict of interest.
But the witness thing is just one example for me of um of the possible conflicts.
And you brought up um information sharing, and we can get into that too.
Well, okay, so let's do it.
So it sounds pretty nefarious, right?
But let's be real with our audience.
The entire Russia-Gate investigation, the steel dossier, Hillary Clinton campaign's involvement in it, paying Perkins-Coey 10 million dollars, hiring Christopher Steele, paying him six figures, getting false information, all the while informing the Clinton campaign of what they were doing through their attorneys, as we now know through the Michael Sussman indictment, who represented the Hillary Clinton campaign.
That's another possible conflict.
Michael Sussman's indicted by the special counsel.
He represented the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Did these lawyers that are representing Denchenkov have anything to do with Michael Sussman in the past?
I don't know the answer to that, but that's another potential conflict of interest.
But what's of greater note is that this information that is cascaded down from the Hillary Clinton campaign for four or five years now, have these lawyers just nested themselves into a defendant that's been charged so they can funnel information back to the Hillary campaign?
Now that sounds pretty nefarious, but after everything we've proven And shown, I wouldn't put it past them.
And that's why this judge has to adjudicate this matter now and appropriately.
And can you imagine a scenario where lawyers for a defendant were there, not in his best interest, which is what is required by the Constitution, but we're being paid by someone to do that representation, and then all the discovery, all the evidence that John Durham has to turn over so that the defendant's rights are under the Constitution are upheld, they take some of that information and leak it to the press.
They go around and give it back to Hillary Clinton or her campaign, and that campaign uses and puts it in the media.
And it's no surprise, and we'll get into this as soon as well, that Hillary Clinton's all of a sudden back in the news.
Um so it's raising a lot of questions.
I don't think there are anything, I don't ever think there's anything like a coincidence in these types of cases.
Um, and I think uh this judge, we should follow this.
This judge has to deal with this matter.
He doesn't have to divulge how he deals with it or the details he deals with it, but he has to make a decision, and there has to be what we call um a waiver uh by the defendant, and that's a process.
So interesting.
And so are there any other sort of these uh conflicts of interest that uh Jerem outlined?
I think there were I think there were others.
Well, the the other one that's actually maybe it's more uh prescient than than the one we've talked about.
I mean, this is crazy, it's all like all in one case.
The other one um is that John Durham quietly in his pleading basically told the world what we've known the whole time, and we've been saying, you and I on this show, the Hillary Clinton campaign is being investigated by John Durham.
So he's telling the judge not only am I not done with my special counsel investigation, I've indicted Klein Smith, I've indicted Sussman, I've indicted Denchenko, I've told the world about Charles Dolan, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Mark Elias, who used to represent the Hillary Clinton campaign, uh, the corrupt activities of the FBI, but I'm now also telling you, Judge, I'm looking into the Hillary Clinton campaign's conduct and involvement in the production of the Steele dossier.
It that that's a massive conflict of interest.
Even if John Durham doesn't indict anyone in the Hillary Clinton campaign, what John Durham's saying is, Judge, I'm looking at it.
I've been looking at it.
I don't know what I'm gonna find.
Are one of the people I'm looking at in the Hillary Clinton campaign connected to this law firm?
I'll take it one step further.
Is he looking at one of the lawyers who represented the Hillary Clinton campaign?
And it's people might say that's a super far stretch, but we now know that Michael Sussman, a lawyer for Hillary Clinton, has already been indicted for his conduct during the Russian gate hoax.
So I don't put it past him.
I'm not, I don't know these lawyers, I don't know that they've done that, but John Durham would be the only one that knows the answer to that question.
And what he's saying is those roads may lead to them or clients they represented.
So you have the money angle, the information angle, the investigative angle, and we haven't even gotten to the defendant's constitutional rights, which I think Trump all of those.
So well, I think we do need to get to those.
I mean, you you're laying it out perfectly here, right?
But but so now why is that the most important thing here?
That's fair.
I mean, maybe I'm biased because of my time in as a public defender, but you know, what you're supposed to do as a defense attorney is is execute due process and stand up when your client has been charged with whatever they've been charged with.
He's afforded that right, not at 50% or 70%, but a hundred percent, and not just one day, but from beginning to end.
He has to have that right.
Otherwise, it could be reversible error in the appellate courts because they'll say counsel was ineffective, as we call it.
And if there's a finding of ineffectiveness or a conflict because of ineffectiveness, um it's a reversal, and then he gets to go all over again.
But I also believe that that's the whole point of our justice system.
That's why it's different from 90 plus percent of the world's just judicial systems.
We have a we have a system in place where everyone gets the counsel of their choosing, and if they can't afford one, there's a public defender service to afford them uh that sort of representation that the Constitution demands.
The defendant in this case, and the Supreme Court again adjudicated this, he has to be away made aware of all these conflicts, not just by his own attorneys, but by the prosecution and possible inquiry by the judge to further develop some of the lines that in this case John Durham is has laid out for the court.
And only after the defendant has been made Aware of all of those potential conflicts, the witnesses, the money, the bias, where the investigation's going, then the judge in open court has to ask the defendant if he wants to, even knowing all that information, stick with his lawyers.
So he has to make what's called the knowing, intelligent and intentional waiver of a conflict of interest.
All the all three of those have to be met.
So he can only do that if he's been informed of the conflicts and the potential conflicts in their entirety.
And then he has to go into open court and say, judge I've reviewed all of that information.
And because the Constitution speaks directly to this, that is, he is allowed his counsel of choosing, which and I agree with this.
If he knows about all of it and still wants to go with them, that should be his right.
But what John Durham is saying is, I don't know if he knows about all of that.
Plus, what John Durham is saying is, I don't know all of the information because I'm still investigating the Clinton campaign.
You, the judge can talk to the lawyers outside of the prosecution's presence.
You can talk to the lawyers and the defendant outside of the prosecution's presence.
You, the judge can call in witnesses and say, I've been notified of a possible conflict of interest from your firm or this organization or this individual I hear might be indicted.
I want to know the details, so I can so I can advise the defendant in this case of those details so he can make that knowing and intentional waiver.
Yeah, it gets pretty, it gets pretty tricky, but the reason why a judges are so careful in this matters is because here's the one thing federal judges never want a reversal.
They don't want to be reversed.
They want to get it right the first time, they don't want an appellate court to say you screwed up.
Uh, because like everybody else, federal judges have egos, but also they have a record they want to establish that they've done it right.
Their reputation, of course.
Yeah.
This is a high media case, so it's gonna get a lot of scrutiny.
So I think it's it's I think it's far from over.
I think there it's gonna take a little bit of time to develop this.
And it also shows me that I'm not sure that Igor Denchenkov has received all the discovery in his case because John Durham is now guarding waiting to divulge all this information that he's allowed under the prosecution to set up his defense because he, John Durham, if I were him, would be saying, I don't know what the defense attorneys are gonna do with this information.
And so um, we'll see where the judge goes, but it's pretty, it's a pretty dynamic situation.
Um I would be really interested to find out how Igor Denchnikov came to retain these guys in the first place and who's paying for it, because it is a six-figure uh monetary hire to rank retain counsel like that.
And you know, but but we may actually never know this, right?
We might not.
I think the most we'll see, uh usually the most we'll see is a pleading by the defense or the judge that says the matter has been adjudicated, the defendant has made a knowing uh an intentional and voluntary waiver, or the judge could just issue a ruling and say, you, the defendant, have to find new counsel.
I see.
And we would never know why.
And then I guess the defendant could ultimately tell us why down the road, but that's the other option, and then the judge would give him time to go get new counsel.
Because it would so it's not just because I I would that was my question.
It's not just up to the defendant.
The judge might just say, This doesn't look good to me.
Let's you need someone else.
Uh well, it's not, and so it's not up to the judge, right?
Remember, the the judge can't make the decision for the defendant.
The defendant has to make that knowing and intentional and voluntary waiver.
Okay.
If he makes that waiver, after being advised of everything, he's entitled to keep his counsel.
Okay.
The judge and the defense attorneys and the prosecution to some degree just have to make sure all that information is presented to him.
Because fast forward and say the defendant only receives 70% of the possible conflicts or 80%, and then he gets convicted at trial.
That case is getting reversed.
Because if it's later shown that there was other possible conflicts of interest that weren't shown to the defendant and he made the waiver, then he didn't make it knowingly, knowing all the information that he should have known at the time.
And he can come back on appeal and say, well, had I known the other 20% or the other 10%, then I would have gotten new counsel.
And the appellate court's stuck there.
They'll just they'll have to reverse the case.
And not only does the judge not want to do that, but you know, these are monumental prosecutions for John Durham.
You know, we don't want the DOJ to spin for another two, three years while an appeal goes on And have to do it all over again because there wasn't a proper disclosure to the defendant.
And I think that's what John Durham's trying to safeguard against here by putting everyone on notice of these possible conflicts of interest, which I think are actual conflicts, but it's ultimately up to the defendant.
That's fascinating.
Because I guess I guess my question here is, you know, let's say the defendant does issue be write this waiver and say, I'm gonna keep this counsel.
Is aren't there ways that you could I guess kind of weaponize that the case of the case?
Well, yeah, um, and I hadn't thought of it before, but there's these things called JDAs, joint defense agreements.
And what you can do is, and we and we've seen these, and I've done these in large-scale narco-trafficking cases where you have 20, 30 defendants, um, you get together and you say, okay, we're gonna basically team up with everybody's lawyers and every defendant, and we're gonna present a unified case.
Um, you're allowed to do that.
Yeah, again, you have to go through similar process, you have to waive conflicts and the defendants have to be advised and then sign on to these agreements and they can get pretty complicated.
Here, what I would be safeguarding against is a joint defense agreement between Danchenkov and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And I think that's what John Durham's also looking at, because he, Denchenkoff could have retained these lawyers, and the though the lawyers, they're not dumb.
They know John Durham's investigating the campaign.
And what they could be saying is we're gonna enter into a joint defense agreement where we represent both, and if Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton's campaign or anyone from the campaign were charged, we would continue representation of both.
It gets a little more complicated and a little more tricky.
Um, but uh that's something that we have to hide we should watch for.
And what and what advantage that would that give to the defendant?
Um defendants.
It's a group effort.
So you have instead of the defendants doing uh he said she said, I didn't do it, she did it, she didn't do it, he did it.
Defense, right?
You don't have to be tried together.
You don't even have to be charged together for this type of joint defense agreement to be applicable.
Generally, you're co-defendants, generally speaking, but there could be some scenario where you're not co-defendants.
But for example, Jake Sullivan, the current national security advisor of the president of the United States.
I deposed Jake Sullivan a few years ago when I was running the Russia Gate investigation.
And that that deposition was taken under oath.
Like the Sussman investigation, excuse me, Sussman indictment, I deposed Sussman.
My deposition is in Michael Sussman's indictment as the basis for the prosecution that John Durham brought.
I think there's a basis against Jake Sullivan for similarly lying to Congress about numerous things under oath.
At the time, Jake Sullivan was a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
He was one of her top advisors of that campaign.
So is John Durham looking at Jake Sullivan?
I think in the Sessman indictment he told us he is.
I think in this pleading he told us he's looking at the Hillary Clinton and uh excuse me, Hillary Clinton campaign.
So there's a very possible reality that this these group of lawyers have represented Jake Sullivan in the past, either directly or indirectly or tangentially.
And what if he gets charged by John Durham going forward?
Then that's a huge conflict of interest issue for not just uh the defendant, Igor Denchenkov, but for the court and the prosecution, the prosecution has to get it right the first time because they don't want to have to do that all over again because they knew about it, and they just said, eh, we don't really need to tell anyone.
Um it's never gonna come up.
And that when you do something like that is when it always comes up.
And if it comes up mid-trial, then there's sanctions that the judge can bring against the prosecution for saying, wait, you knew this and you didn't tell me because you say we didn't think it was gonna come up.
And I've had that happen mid-trial, um, Perry Mason style.
And that and the federal judge was not happy at all.
And I was a public defender at the time, and it ended up in order to the benefit of my client, but the government could have totally avoided that entire situation.
And I think that's what he's trying, he John Durham is trying to do here.
I mean, this is absolutely fascinating.
I mean, we've really we've really kind of dug in here.
Um, what about this media presence of uh Hillary Clinton that you mentioned?
Why do you think that's significant?
I think it's significant for a lot of reasons.
Look, she has been around for a long time.
Her campaign is enormous, it's still ongoing.
There's rumors of her running again in 2024.
And I've always said this, there are no coincidences in these types of prosecutions.
It is strikingly odd to me that at the same time on or about John Durham files his pleading, Hillary Clinton is in the spotlight of the media again, talk not just talking about her her science fiction book or whatever, but also regurgitating the lies of the Russia Gate investigation, the Russia Gate hosts, by saying, you know, President Trump was aided by the Russians and put into power.
When we all know, after I don't know how many congressional investigations ours being the preeminent one, and how many special counsel investigations and Muller who couldn't find anything in the IG who agreed with us, she still says that.
It's very timely to me that she's saying it at the time of this disclosure.
And I think what she's trying to do is muddy the media waters again by saying, I didn't do anything wrong, I Hillary Clinton or my campaign, because her campaign is the one that's under the spotlight through her attorneys right now.
Um, and I remind our audience that one of her campaign attorneys got indicted by John Durham already.
So she's always been savvy enough and cunning enough to inject into the media and try to distract uh away the narrative.
And it's working.
I hate to say it's working because you and I are one of the only people talking about it.
The mainstream media isn't talking about it.
They're just trying to help her sell her book and make President Trump look bad because that's the narrative they want out there.
If they looked at the facts of this situation, you would think that in the biggest political criminal scandal in the United States history, it would be headline news that there's a possibility of a conflict of interest because the individuals that started the entire corrupt criminal enterprise with the Steele dossier are now related to the people that have been charged and defending them.
It's literally like a movie you couldn't even come up with in Hollywood because that scenario is just unfathomable, even to me, after trying 60 cases to verdict um in criminal court and state and federal court, and having done all that work, I could never have even envisioned this scenario.
So, Cash, at the risk of going kind of deep down the rabbit hole here a little bit, you know, there presumably there are multiple counsel uh for the Hillary Killing campaign.
Now, presumably we know there are.
So, and it kind of made it sound like you believe that the counsel that are representing Dunchenko right now were involved back in 2016 or earlier.
So, great point.
My reading of the pleading is is that.
That's my interpretation of it.
Of course, John Durham doesn't have to divulge that.
But here's a key piece of information uh to clear up.
Most of these like ginormous white shoe law firms have thousands and thousands of lawyers.
It's a little different in this case.
Uh I forget the name of the law firm off the top of my head, but two of the named partners in the title of the law firm are the two defense attorneys for Igor Denchenkov.
So it's not like there is a thousand people working for them and that someone could have been so.
My reading of the Endurum indictment is um that either they or someone in their firm represented uh pieces of the Hillary Clinton campaign either five years ago, four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, last week.
And this makes up a great point that we actually didn't address an internal conflict within the law firm.
So the law firm could have a hundred lawyers, it could have five, it could have a thousand.
Did anyone in that law firm over the last five years represent anyone in the Hillary Clinton campaign?
If the answer to that is yes, then that's a potential conflict of interest because everything within that law firm is applied, the knowledge that's um with it held within that law firm is applied to every member of the law firm when it comes to conflicts of interest.
So if uh junior associate represented a Hillary Clinton campaign staffer on the Hill, let's say, then there could be a conflict of interest here because that same law firm continues.
Even if that lawyer is no longer at that law firm, the conflicts don't cease because lawyers stop working at place A or B. They continue in perpetuity.
And so it's uh it's a complicated kind of uh wormhole that you have to that you have to navigate.
It's very delicate.
Now what they also identified in the pleading, and I'm glad you brought this up, is that these defense lawyers uh said informed the prosecution that they would wall themselves off from any other people in the law firm.
And basically what that means is they would literally, uh not quite literally, but basically confine themselves into their own sort of fort.
And no other attorneys in the firm would be able to communicate in with them, and they couldn't communicate out about this matter.
But what was telling to me about that is the way I read the pleading was the lawyers, the defense lawyers said they would do that going forward.
What did they do going in reverse?
Had it already happened, had those lawyers, the defense lawyers already talked to other individuals in their law firm.
Had those individuals worked on in any fashion civil, criminal, what have you matters for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
We don't know the answers to those questions.
So that's a whole nother area of possible conflicts we didn't talk about.
That's just housed within the law firm itself.
I mean, as you as you mentioned earlier, Cash, typically there's, you know, one conflict, potential conflict, a piece of a conflict.
This really seems like a myriad of potential conflicts.
So yeah, this is like a this is like a law school nightmare come true in terms of law school exams, right?
Because you look for these scenarios where you have like 27 issues, and in real life, you might have maybe one or a piece of one.
And like you said, in this, and like we've outlined, and maybe they should make a law school exam out of this scenario.
Uh, you have like every conflict of interest under the sun in one case.
It's it's shocking uh that it's gotten to that extent, but it doesn't surprise me anymore given the nature of their the campaign's involvement from from jump on on all things steel in Russia Gate.
So, in a normal situation, uh, not this high profile case, not this, you know, I guess I'll let's I'll just say craziness over however many years.
You know, what would happen in a case like this?
Normally, as a defense attorney, step one, me, if I was representing the client in a case like this, I would go to the client and say, I can't represent you anymore.
I want to, but I cannot because legally and ethically, um, I'm not, I'm not permitted to do so.
And I would even go far as to tell them, look, you can wave, you can knowingly and intentionally and voluntarily wave, but I would tell them affirmatively, and almost every defense lawyer I know would do the same thing.
I can no longer represent you in the in your best interest because something might come up in the future, and that could harm you.
And you're looking at prison time if I get this wrong.
And so that's what would normally happen.
And what would normally happen is they'd leave and some other counsel would come in, or the judge would help them get to that decision relatively quickly.
Uh, I since this is not a normal case, um, unfortunately, it might be treated with a different set of rules, as has seemed to be the case for most things involving um the Hillary Clinton campaign.
So this is absolutely fascinating and like much deeper than I expected uh we would go.
I want to switch gears a little bit and just talk about these very fascinating revelations we got from FOIAD emails that uh Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci exchanged in response to the publication of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Um now, actually, let me remind our viewers what the Great Barrington Declaration was.
So we're looking at, you know, three top scientists.
Uh Dr. Martin Coldorf, who was at Harvard, Dr. Jay Badicheria was at Stanford, and Sunatra Dr. Sunetra Gupta, who's at Oxford.
And together they came out with this declaration.
And the declaration was simply we should do focused protection of the most vulnerable people uh in society in response to the pandemic.
And uh, and this is kind of in response to these mass lockdowns, and they were seeing a lot of costs and not a lot of benefits from them.
And this was an attempt, and I know from speaking to at least two of them, that this was just an attempt to create a discourse, a scientific discourse uh in the in the community.
Now, here's the thing.
These emails uh basically show, and I'm gonna I'll actually read uh a line from an email from Dr. Collins has said something to this effect.
Oh, actually, this is a direct quote.
There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises.
That's talking to the Great Barrington Declaration.
I don't see anything like that online yet.
Is it underway?
And he also describes the three as three fringe epidemiologists, which is you know preposterous given these people's credentials.
So what's your what's your response to this?
Uh unfortunately, I think, and the reason I you know lobbed my head back in almost disbelief is I can't believe we're we're addressing it because that's the state of most of the media today.
And it started with what we were talking about, the Russia gate investigation, I believe, and you know, the Trump President Trump's candidacy back then, and then his ultimate um actual presidency.
And the media, as we've talked about in this show in the past, so many large factions of it have put on misinformation and disinformation campaigns.
And you can pick your topic.
It doesn't have to be Russia Gate.
It can be the Bounty Gate scandal, it can be impeachment, it can be COVID, China, China origins on COVID.
Um, it can be um anything we're talking about related to the winter Olympic games today.
There's always these continuous narratives that certain sectors of the media just want to push, irrespective of what the actual information is.
And all these journalists um just stopped being journalists and stopped fact checking and stopped getting credible information, and even started doctoring videos and statements to support a narrative, a conclusion they wanted to be true, rather than actually investigating it.
So I think that's why we're here.
I think that's what landed us here, and it continues uh with all things, as you say, uh the CCP virus.
It's interesting that Cash that you focus on the media aspect here, because obviously that's incredibly important.
You know, something that uh Jeff Carlson and Hans Manke, who are, you know, have this wonderful show called Truth Over News on Epoch TV.
Um, something they noted in a recent article about this email dump is actually that there was this kind of, you know, jumping on a particular this particular narrative, essentially the narrative that was coming from Dr. Fauci and Dr. Call it Collins and this immediate censorship of everything.
I think it was shortly after these emails were actually published.
Facebook, the social media would start, you know, basically censoring mentions of this.
Hans Manke and uh Jeff Carlson in a recent article about this whole piece have mentioned how there was uh kind of a collaboration between Facebook essentially supporting CDC messaging ostensibly, but now we know how the this messaging actually came about.
I mean, it's just what strikes me about this is just how actual scientific inquiry is lost in all of this.
No, you're you're totally right.
And that's the whole point.
The point of government is supposed partly is supposed to get information, accurate information to its citizenry.
The point of government is not to collaborate with certain sectors of the media to help push a narrative and suppress the the information underlying that narrative, or not report it accurately, or not let out that statistical information.
And I think that's what you're talking about, and that's what's happening here.
And I think the the public sees that finally.
They see their they're saying, especially in the whole you know, landscape of Omicron, um, why is there mass hysteria and where are the facts?
Where's the information the CDC is supposed to give me?
Where is the NIH director and saying, well, this is why I'm saying this, not just jumping up and down and screaming the conclusion and having the media parrot that information.
I think that has been lost, unfortunately.
And when you have government sectors join up and collaborate with the likes of Facebook and everything, that can be good, but it can also be bad in the sense that if they just cut out all the actual information that they're supposed to provide and just provide these um fictionalized almost to a certain degree um epitets, then I think you just hurt not just the media, but you hurt the American public because they're asking why, and you're not telling them.
So it it's interesting that you mentioned that because uh there was this Wall Street Journal uh editorial recently that I that I thought was also really fascinating and put it well.
I'm gonna I'm gonna read briefly what they said.
They said the emails, and we're talking about these these email exchanges, right?
Suggest a feedback loop.
The media cited Dr. Fauci as an unquestionable authority, and Dr. Fauci got his talking points from the media.
And Facebook censored mentions of the Great Barrington Declaration.
This is how groupthink works.
And it it's deeply concerning because this is the health policy, actually, frankly, not just for America, but a lot of other countries have actually mirrored um American policy.
No, we're supposed to lead with facts and information.
And instead, you know, we have places like South Africa leading on Omicron and the variant and scientific information and data to back up its statements.
And that's why you've had the South African government speaking internationally on it and America is not speaking internationally on it because the international community has lost faith and credibility in the government's ability to report that underlying information that you're talking about.
And this loop this circular reporting, the so-called loop reporting that you're talking about, tragically it's not the only place it's happened.
It's happened in Pick Your Subject in National Security, pick your subject on impeachment, pick your subject on Russia Gate.
And I hate to keep coming back to the Steel dossier, but Steel literally reported X, leaked it to the media, the FBI jumped on it and said, oh, it's in the media, we can corroborate what you were saying, even though you were the one leaking the false information.
I mean that's just, you know, the the worst thing that can happen to our Republic because not just are you putting out wrong information, you're destroying Americans' belief in government and the media and how else are we supposed to operate um as a society if if and and I see this all around when I go around the country.
People have just stopped reading and listening to the news entirely on both sides of the spectrum because they can't stand its politicization anymore.
And this doesn't help.
I think I mentioned this at the beginning of the show that there's a lot of folks out there and sometimes myself included sometimes losing a bit of hope right in the system and where things are going.
At the same time I I have to mention you know for uh our uh American thought leaders on on Christmas day we actually are having you know Bob Woodson come on the show talking about the incredible work that he's been doing at the grassroots level to deal to basically help as he describes it people become agents of their own uplift in some of the most difficult communities.
And that's I the thing that keeps striking me is that it's kind of at the grassroots level it's at the people's level that the solutions to all of these you know pretty significant challenges that we've been talking about today are are are coming from.
You know, we have, you know, we we f frankly I I mean this is at the federal level we have of course the special counsel John Durham we have you know uh Cash Patel frankly working working for a number of years discovering all of these things.
We have the epoch times I'll applug us a little bit you know seek basically trying to wade through all of this and and find the truth.
A number of the people who have become reporters for the epoch times are people who are just basically looking at the data, trying to figure things out seeing that there wasn't uh uh you know that that what they were hearing wasn't jiving with reality and they bec they started out as citizen reporters and then they became actual reporters because they were doing so much a better job than many of the people that were doing it professionally.
So you know there's a I I don't know how this is all going to play out but I I I I do see I do see a hope in all of this.
Yeah.
Yeah you're right and and it's good to not provide people with the false hope because that's worse than actually providing them with with the actual hope which is what you're talking about.
You're talking about media organizations and individuals that have gone out there and waited through the evidence and put that evidence and information out for the American people to read and see themselves and not just conclusions.
And Epoch Times is at the front of that for sure, especially on all things COVID reporting and attacking disinformation and misinformation in any of its variants.
So it is refreshing to see that.
And it's very encouraging to see the slow, methodical course corrections that John Durham is making, because I think too many have lost faith in our FBI or DOJ and our intelligence apparatus after the entire Russiagate scenario that we're still living with.
And I think that finally, I agree with you that John Durham is more than just the hope that we need.
He, by having people held a...
accountable will restore uh the credibility and faith in government and the media collaboratively.
I also wanted to mention we're talking about on the on the COVID side of things or CCP virus side of things um there is the Brownstone Institute, you know, founded by Jeffrey Tucker that is you know bringing together some of the brightest minds that are you know deeply truth seeking around coronavirus and the costs of coronavirus.
