Kash Patel on ‘Infiltration’ of the White House and Media Misconduct
“When people say, oh, Kash, it’s not an infiltration. Well, that’s exactly what it is.”In this episode of Kash’s Corner, Kash responds to claims that special counsel John Durham did not find “spying” or “infiltration” of the White House servers. We discuss the three tracks to tie Trump to Russia that Durham is investigating, how Durham’s findings have been misrepresented, and how this is part of a broader trend of media misreporting.
Hey everybody and welcome to Cash's Corner here at CPAC in Orlando, Florida.
You've been getting a lot of flack recently.
You're gonna have to be more specific.
Yeah.
Um, I I'm I'll I'll read you a headline, okay?
How the right embraced the false claim that Hillary Clinton, quote, spied on President Donald Trump.
And this actually, this uh Washington Post article, it stems from something that you said uh talking about uh these recent filings that special counsel Durham has been putting out, kind of, you know, I guess exposing a lot of the work that he's been doing that's frankly been new to a lot of us.
I agree, and I think that that article came out like last week, uh if I'm not mistaken.
And so, look, it's no surprise to me that I continue to get excoriated by outfits like the Washington Post and other mainstream media outfits.
It started back in 2016, 17 when I ran the Russiagate investigation for then Chairman Nunes on House Intel.
And I think we're gonna get into like sort of the MO of why the media does this, why the mainstream media does this.
They start these personal attacks, they start putting out false information, and they cycle that through the government and the media themselves to counter the factual narrative that we've put out.
And we'll talk about the three lines of effort, I think that we've talked about previously on Cash's corner and how they intertwine with this Washington Post article.
But to me, the fact that they're trying to fact check me based on a federal pleading shows you the extent to which they're willing to go to create a counter narrative just to have something else out there, because they don't like what John Durham is pleading as a federal prosecutor in court.
Well, okay, and so very briefly for those as of yet uninitiated, broadly speaking, what is John Durham pleaded that has been surprising, new and informative.
Yeah, so it was even new to me and and to the likes of Devin Nunez and you guys who follow this so extensively and who worked on this so much.
So the main thing that was new was what I call line of effort three.
John Durham revealed in his latest pleading that Michael Sussman, the indicted head Hillary Clinton lawyer from the Hillary Clinton campaign uh and for the DNC, retained a tech company to do a number of things.
One of the things this tech company was supposed to do was mine for data to create, quote, John Durham's language, a narrative and an inference that Donald Trump was somehow had a relationship with Russia, the Russian government, or Putin, to continue that narrative that they tried to start with the steel dossier.
So this is line of effort three.
And what what John Durham alleges is that Sussman created a relationship with the tech company.
The tech company then went out and got, quote, a sensitive arrangement, end quote, to access Trump Tower, one of Donald Trump's residences, and the White House, specifically the executive office of the president, and I'll explain what that is later.
So what what in in my 16 years in government, as the former deputy director of national intelligence, as a National Security Advisor and House Intelligence Committee, and as the former chief of staff to DOD, what that means when you get a sensitive arrangement, it means a contract was obtained by a private non-governmental party, in this case the tech company, and a government agency in the intelligence community to access White House servers, computer farms, computer servers.
That is the only way you can do it without hacking it.
And that's why I said what I said before.
That is literally a covert infiltration to the White House servers.
And that's why I think it's such shocking news that we're finding out about it, what, four four years later, maybe five years later, and the guys that ran the Russiagate investigation had no idea about it.
That's another reason why I, not John Durham, John Durham didn't say infiltrate, but he said gained a sensitive arrangement, and I'm telling you from my experience, there's only one way to do that, uh, to obtain a central sensitive agreement, and that's with the intelligence community.
And but this tech company, right, and tech executive one who ran the the company, they've been actually working with the White House for some time, like quite a bit before uh, you know, basically Trump even came on the scene.
Yeah, so John Durham put in his indictment, that's where we get the date from.
You and I aren't Making it up.
He said the agreement between the DNC and the lawyers and the Hillary campaign and the tech company was reached in July of 2016.
So that's the same time the steel dossier thing was going on, and shortly thereafter, it's the same time the Alpha Bank server narrative was going on.
That's line of effort too.
So I think this line of effort three, they were run on parallel tracks.
It's not like we they did steal and the steel dossier struck out, they did Alpha Bank struck out, and they went to line of effort three, we'll call it the server line of effort.
They did him at the same time and started them about the same time in early January, in early 2016.
So tech executive one, okay, he's actually had, and this is this has been reiterated in some of these articles that were responses to your commentary previously, right?
Was had a relationship with the White House.
Like people have said, no, he was actually, he would have been spying on the Obama White House.
This is what what has been said, right?
No, and that's and that's another that's a great point, and that's what people aren't talking about.
And it's in partly in John Durham's pleading and partly in publicly available information about tech executive one.
He had relationships and contracts with government agencies going back years and years and years.
But it wasn't to do the type of work, as far as I know, and John Durham is alleged, that he did in this, in this line of effort three to infiltrate a White House server.
He is, by his own admission, an individual who has been contracting with the intelligence community, the defense department, and government agencies for years and years through multiple companies providing cyber related work.
The extent of that work we don't know, but I think John Durham does know.
So he has a background in this.
And funny enough, there's a quote out there, Jan, from Tech Executive One, who says he's actually not, and I'm paraphrasing, an expert in cybersecurity matters.
He just knows how to go about and get contracts and put people into play on those matters.
And I think that's very telling.
That's from Tech Executive One's own mouth in his own interview from a few years ago.
Um another thing that we discussed, and we've been looking at these filings quite a bit, is that, you know, first of all, tech executive one is very well off, right?
Yeah, he's not poor.
Yeah.
And at the same time, he was, I guess, offered a position in a future Hillary Clinton administration.
This individual, Tech Executive One, was brought on by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign specifically to execute line of effort three and utilize the servers at the White House, Trump Tower, and Trump's office building to mine information that would show a narrative and inference that Trump was colluding or had a relationship with Russia.
That's in the pleading itself.
That's what John Durham has alleged, and I believe if you're alleging it as a former federal prosecutor, you already have the evidence to show that.
Then he also said that tech executive one was not only offered a high-level cybersecurity job in the Clinton income administration, which they all thought was a foregone conclusion, but that he, Tech Executive One said he would have no job in a Trump administration, showing his bias, showing his political preference as to who should be president.
So as an individual who's contracting with the United States government for millions of dollars over the course of his career, that's not someone you want politicizing your intelligence community.
You don't want to give out those types of contracts.
We actually guarded heavily against doing that.
But we saw what happened with the steel dossier, that the Hillary Clinton campaign did the exact same thing by hiring a former MI6 uh spy to go in and try to get information, similar fashion, get paid, and then feed it in.
And we'll talk about that later.
Now, in the pleading, I believe it talks about the executive office of the president.
So I want you to quickly kind of explain what that is, because for some people it's uh, you know, it's it's a it's a unit, if you will, or others, there's actually physical space.
You mentioned a number of physical spaces.
Why are you so sure that these are the physical spaces that were So yeah, as uh as a former deputy assistant of the president for and the head for counterterrorism, I worked in the White House uh under President Trump.
And what the executive office of the president stands for, what it means is there's six component offices that form the EOP.
It's the Office of the President, it's the Office of the Vice President, it's the National Security Council, it's the National Economic Council, it's the trade representative council's office, and it's also White House Council, the lawyers.
Those are the umbrella, that's the umbrella organization that covers all six of those components.
Those components reside In the EEOB, which is the Eisenhower Executive Office building.
Anyone who's familiar with the White House knows the West Wing is not that big.
So the only people who physically have office space in the West Wing itself are the president, the vice president, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff to the president of the United States, and their immediate, immediate staff, one or two people each.
That's it.
Everybody else is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
It's a massive structure, which I think actually is prettier than the White House from an architectural standpoint, but it's four massive levels, five actually, which are one city block long and half a city block wide.
And that's why when people say the executive office of the president, I wanted to make sure they knew what that meant.
It wasn't just a cable going into the Oval Office.
That's not what it meant.
And John Durham for sure knows what that means.
He would not just say the executive office of the president if he didn't already know and have proven that that infiltration, as I call it, was through the servers that go to those different components, at least two of them.
And what about Trump Tower?
So they're saying there was another day, John Durham is saying that this same tech company obtained a separate route vector to get into Trump Tower servers like they got into the White House servers.
And similarly, the John Durham is saying tech executive one had another vector into Trump's, one of Trump's offices, I believe, in the West side of Manhattan, but it's alleged in the pleading.
And there was a healthcare company too that they say was also accessed through this similar fashion.
So a lot has been made of the use of the term of the word infiltration.
And this was something, this was a word that you used in a statement that you posted the day of this most recent Durham finding or pleading, pardon me, and kind of a whole big rig-amarole around the use of this term, and it's been actually apparently conflated, like your words were conflated with John Durham's words and the pleading.
Can you give us kind of some resolution into this?
Yes, absolutely.
So I stand by what I said when I when I said pursuant to John Durham's pleading that the White House servers, Trump Tower and Trump's office were infiltrated.
And we talked about a little bit before, based on my time in as deputy director of national intelligence, chief of staff of the Department of Defense, former targeter at JSOC, and a former terrorism prosecutor spent a lot of time in the intelligence community.
And then at the upper levels, I spent a lot of time organizing and orchestrating how government contracts are issued.
Now, without getting into the details behind the curtain, I use that knowledge to come to an assessment based on John Durham's use of the words sensitive agreement or sensitive arrangement.
The only way, in my opinion, that you get a sensitive arrangement with the United States government to gain access to White House servers is if you contract with the intelligence community.
That's it.
There isn't another way.
And so when people say, oh, Cash, it's not an infiltration, well, that's exactly what it is, because it's a it's covertly done.
Notice how John Durham didn't expand upon it because most of that information is still probably classified.
And I don't have access to any of it, which is why I'm able to speak to it today from my experience, at least.
And it's not like they publicized it, and it's not like they were doing any good.
We know through John Durham's pleading, the purpose of that access infiltration was to mine Trump's servers to create a quote narrative and inference per John Durham's own pleading from the tech executives that Trump was somehow colluding or coordinating with Russia.
Those are the reasons why I think it's an infiltration.
Circling back to the media component of it, right?
So when this story broke, I did an interview with uh Fox News and Brooke Singman on print media.
And I used the word infiltration, and she quoted me in the headline, pursuant to my quote, which was entirely accurate.
The mainstream media didn't bother to shocking, didn't bother to read the article.
They read the title and they said they went after Fox News.
They said Fox News falsely accuses John Durham of saying infiltrate.
He never said it.
He's right, he didn't.
Cash Patel said it in that interview, which I stand by.
Do you know what happened to that article?
That article was then one of the most well-read articles of the week on the entire internet that Brooke put out.
At the end of the week, Michael Sussman's lawyers file that responsive pleading where they say what John Durham said is factually inaccurate, which is their right to do.
They can allege it as John Durham did, basically effectively under oath to federal court.
What Facebook did was remove that article from its entire website as false information and fake news.
I don't even know if there's a word in the English language that covers the media's conduct and now social media's conduct.
It would have been one thing if social media came out and said, this is what Cash and Fox said pursuant to the article, this is what the pleading said, and this is what John Durham said, you the world, read it all and come out yourself to your own conclusion.
They just pulled it.
And if you look for the search on the internet, if you look for the article on the internet, you can now almost not find that Fox News article that Brooke Singman did.
Fascinating.
And so, and what how you're so sure it went so crazy viral is the most read piece.
This is what you're saying.
Because it was, it was, we did it, if I recall the timeline correctly, John Durham issued his pleading on Friday evening, and this article was written on Saturday and put out Saturday, and it was before any print publications that I'm aware of, had put together a piece based on John Durham's pleading.
And so I think the reason they asked me to do it, in part was because I did the Russia Gate investigation in my background in the intelligence community, so I spoke to the language in that pleading.
What the media doesn't do when they responded to it or Facebook or Sussman's pleading, they don't disagree with my calculation, my assessment.
They just outright call it false in fake news, but don't say why.
Which I also find a little confounding because if they explained it, maybe I would have an opportunity to say, well, that's why I'm wrong.
But that just tells me it's the same thing as when they attack people personally.
Uh when they've run out of facts to support their position, they're doing the same thing here, they're just saying fake news, fake news, fake news, which is what they've been doing for years now, causing social media, as we've now seen, to have basically an implosion.
And that's led to the advent of Truth Social and me being on social media for the first time ever.
So it's quite this six year, I don't even know if it's a circle, I would just call it a path, I guess, a journey for for me and you and media in general.
Well, so given everything all of this, let's go back to this uh this headline, you know.
The false claim that Hillary Clinton, quote, spied on President Donald Trump.
What do you think about that?
I have a pretty simple response to that, and it's not mine.
So the Attorney General of the Department of Justice said under oath that Donald Trump's presidency was spied on.
The director of the FBI, Chris Ray, said under oath that Donald Trump's campaign was spied on, and he went on to say under oath that the FBI intentionally committed a fraud on the FISA court through that whole steel dossier effort, which we've talked about.
Then the inspector general of the Department of Justice agreed with the attorney general, the director of the FBI, and said there were 17 instances of errors, any one of which should have reversed the surveillance warrant issued under line of effort one for the steel dossier.
I think those are three pretty powerful men who have testified under oath to Congress.
So I'll take their word under the point of perjury versus the word of the Washington Post any day.
So Cash, this is one of the things we've been talking about, and frankly, you know, documenting.
There's kind of the you could describe it as the same MO, the same modus operandi that keeps kind of being rinsed and repeated in different formats.
Maybe you can kind of outline that a little bit.
I definitely can.
So I believe when we're talking about the three lines of effort, real quick reminder, line of effort one, the steel dossier and the FISA court stuff, line of effort two, the Alpha Bank server, where the same tech company was retained by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign to go in and try to find a connection between Trump Tower and Alpha Bank, which is a Russian bank company, so they could say collusion coordination, whatever, that's line of effort two, and then line of effort three is what we've been talking about through the tech executive and the access to the White House.
They've run the same MO.
They, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, go out and hire Perkins CUI, the law firm that Sussman and Mark Eliz used to work at, run tens of millions of dollars through that.
Then the law firm Goes out and hires other companies, fusion GPS, tech executives, and what and the like.
And they're running these on parallel tracks to try to prove the false narrative, which we now that Donald Trump somehow colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.
Now, while they were doing that, the false information they knew they were updating, because these are also in John Durham's pleadings, that the information that came back on Alpha Bank, the information that came back on tech executive one, and obviously now we know everything that came back on the steel dossier, they knew to be false at the time they paid for it.
They took that information anyway and fed it to the FBI, other government agencies, the intelligence communities, sort of on another offshoot of their line of efforts to say, we've got this information, what are we going to do with it?
They're going to take it to the federal government to say, okay, you, the United States government, you need to launch an investigation of Donald Trump, which is exactly what happened.
While they were doing that, another offshoot from these three lines of effort was well, I believe if they if I was the DNC in the Hillary Clinton campaign, trying to prove this privately would be of little use to them.
So they had to prove it publicly.
How do they do that?
They leaked this very information, the steel dossier efforts, the Alpha Bank efforts and and the like to the media.
The media then reported this on anonymous sources as if it were true and accurate information obtained by other sources unrelated to the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
And then what did the, for example, what did the what did the FBI do in the FISA court with this with steel and going up on Carter Page, they said, oh, look, we have corroboration from Outlet X and Outlet Y, because we were told this by our sources, and now the media is reporting it on other sources.
Well, as you and I now well know because we proved it, it was the same sources, coming from the same money, all dating back to the Hillary Clinton campaign's effort to try to tie Donald Trump to Russia.
Which if you look back at it in like five, six year expanse, it's wild, isn't even the right word.
It's literally the definition of insane.
Trying to do the same thing over and over again and reach a different result.
And uh they failed on all fronts.
Seem to be very determined to try to find something.
And it's kind of it's kind of amazing in a way that they didn't really find anything.
I think that's the biggest point, and that's you know, when you bring up articles like the one you cited earlier and all the other hit pieces for lack of a better term, on me and Devin and Johnny Ratcliffe and everybody along the way, that's the next step in it, right?
First they put out this master plan to take down a candidate and eventually a president for the United States with false information that they knew to be false, paying tens of millions of dollars along the way to do that.
Then they helped put it in the media.
Then when none of that worked, because we proved the facts, we put out things like the Nunes Memo, we put out the report, the Hipsey report, the IG report, the FBI's investigation, and now we have John Durham's special counsel investigation coming out, proving everything we're saying factually.
What does this same media do?
They come out and start personally attacking the people that investigated it in the first place and proved in the first place.
And that's exactly what I think this Washington Post is doing to me yet again.
They did it four or five months ago when one of their guys tried to do a six-month-long hit piece on me.
And it's fine, we can take it, but what happens is you corrupt the media.
And I think that's a direct result of these like five-year campaigns of putting out false information after false information.
And half of America still believes, because they don't keep up with it like you and I do, they still believe that was true.
That happened.
Um it didn't.
You have to, you have to keep following it to know the story.
I'm seeing, you know, with you know, we're filming on the day basically Russia has invaded Ukraine.
And as this has happened, I keep seeing this narrative coming up.
I mean, this is mostly on Twitter that I'm watching, right?
But I keep seeing that narrative as if it were true coming up again and again and again, and everyone's saying, aha, look.
Now we have evidence of something.
It's it's it's it's just it's incredible.
And and and the media, uh not all of it, but a lot of it has gotten so accustomed to doing this sort of MO that they'll just put out a couple of things and people be like, wow, look at this catchy headline, you know, cash patel under investigation, but that's not really what it says or means.
But people take that and run with it and tweet it and make other headlines with it, and then it's out there and you can't defeat it.
But my biggest problem is when that information becomes defamatory.
And you know what that's like, and I know what that's like personally.
It's not to be called a bad name or something of an opinion, it's to literally have a story made about about you.
And then your family has to read it.
And so that's what this entire process that the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign have done, I believe, has bankrupt most of the media and journalists have lost credibility.
And what surprises me even more is they don't care.
They the journalists.
Most of them just don't care and they continue the defamatory work.
Which is why I started this foundation, Fight with Cash, because I found out I wasn't the only one defamed.
Everyday Americans were defamed, not just called nasty things, but had flat out lies told about them.
And the only way you can clear your name, as you know, is to go to court, but that costs money.
So we're using, you know, our notoriety to go out there and raise money, tell people clear their names by filing defamation suits.
No, and actually this is a good opportunity just to mention like what Fight with Cash does, which is basically, you know, anybody who has faced this sort of situation can actually, you know, come with their case, and your lawyers are gonna look at it and try to figure out whether they can do something with it, right?
Yeah, way smarter lawyers than me.
Uh we have a team and it's basically the entire foundation is a charitable organization.
No one makes any money off of this.
All the work goes to running the foundation and filing lawsuits.
We've got teams of lawyers on standby.
We have multiple pleadings already in the works to file lawsuits, hopefully, which we can go public with shortly, um, following the lawsuits I filed personally against CNN, New York Times and Politico for defamation.
I want others to follow because I know they've been defamed.
We get emails every day at FightwithCash.com saying, telling people, telling us about their stories, and telling us thank you for at least being a voice.
And then we tell them we're more than a voice.
Do you have a case?
Send us a summary.
We'll plead your case legally and assign you a lawyer, and you'll have your day in court.
Well, Cash, I think we've hit the time to do our shout-out.
Yeah, and this week's shout out, Yan goes to Lisa Brazil.
Thanks so much for posting your comments, and thanks to everyone who posted so many comments from our last episode.
We really enjoyed it.
And a special shout out to everyone who's here with us at CPAC watching this episode.
