Kash’s Corner: Hunter Biden Laptop Disinformation; Clinton Campaign and DNC Fined for Breaking Law with Dossier Payments
Eighteen months since the New York Post originally broke the story, the infamous Hunter Biden laptop is back in the limelight after the Washington Post and New York Times report that they’ve verified thousands of emails from the laptop.At the time, dozens of high-level intelligence community officials—including a former director of national intelligence and three former directors of the CIA—signed a letter claiming the emails looked like Russian disinformation. It was right in the midst of a heated election cycle.Fast forward to this week, the assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, Bryan Vorndran, testified under oath that he did not know the location of the laptop, which had been seized by the FBI in 2019.Also, this week the Washington Examiner broke the story that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has fined the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign for secretly funneling money to ex-British spy Christopher Steele for the creation of the Steele dossier. The DNC and the Clinton campaign are not contesting the fine.Kash Patel gives us his take on what’s going on.
Well, Cash, today in the news, we have uh the Washington Post and the New York Times having verified the Hunter Biden laptop, at least a lot of emails on the Hunter Biden laptop, and you know, ones that we already knew were real 18 months ago or so.
And the second thing is I'm gonna read a headline, and this just came up today.
Scoop FEC, that's the Federal Elections Commission, finds DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax.
Whoa, what?
Yeah, I think we gotta talk about this.
They gotta pay up, but we'll get to that.
Great.
So well, let's start with the laptop.
Let's okay, why don't we just actually do a little overview of what the whole laptop thing is?
Yeah, so quick synopsis for our audience who is probably very dialed into this anyway.
About 18 months ago, almost two years ago, um, there was a laptop retrieved from a computer store, I believe in Delaware or somewhere.
And basically it was reported that it was Hunter Biden, the then candidate Biden's son's laptop, and on it was information regarding criminality and some serious allegations of um crimes involving fraud, um, some invite you might possibly involving minor children, and some pretty serious, serious stuff.
So the New York Post broke the story, and immediately, because we were in the middle of a presidential election cycle with Donald Trump and Joe Biden, uh New York Post's Twitter account was shut down, Facebook shut him down, anyone that reported on that story got shut down as all Russian disinformation.
That was the catch-all by the fake news media because they didn't want this story out there.
But here's what I like to remind our audience for my public defender and prosecutor days.
Not only did they just have a laptop, which in and of itself is hard data, hard evidence.
It's pretty hard to refute unless you can show it was generated by someone and sort of fictionalized and sort of made up.
But in this instance, not only do they have the laptop itself belonging to Hunter Biden, they had an individual by the name of Tony Bobolinsky who came out and said, I am corroborating the contents of the laptop because I, Tony Bobolinsky, and are in those emails.
And I know the communications between Hunter Biden and I think they called Joe Biden the big guy or something like that.
So you had two levels of of evidence that you rarely get in criminal prosecutions.
You have the hard data from the laptop and you have an eye witness who is involved in the emails that were exploited out of the laptop, authenticating, as we say, for legal purposes, the contents of it.
So when it when a media outlet like the New York Post goes out, I I agree with them.
They went out swinging because they had everything they needed.
And they corroborated the information in the contents.
And the fake news media labeled it Russian disinformation because they just didn't want to entertain it.
You know, this was uh kind of an one of these hard to believe moments where something that was you know ostensibly verified was suddenly in the public eye at least shown to be false or at least portrayed as false.
And it's really interesting.
There was this letter from it was about 50 mil 50 intel of past Intel officials basically suggesting, even though they hadn't they didn't have evidence for this.
I think this is what the letter said that it was it had all the all hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
And that's kind of what was run the corporate media ran with.
Yeah, and you bring up a great point.
So it wasn't just the fake news media saying this is Russian disinformation.
They used their same method of operation that they used in the whole Russia gatehoa, how they covered it falsely.
Um, how they covered the Ukraine impeachment fiasco falsely, and now insert Hunter Biden in his laptop, the fake news media is doing the exact same thing.
They are outright just saying that story can't be true because it doesn't, you know, it hurts President Biden or candidate Biden and it helps Donald Trump, so we're just gonna smash it.
How do we smash it?
We put out headlines That we know are false.
We get people who used to be in high level positions in government to come out and say it's false or suggest it's false so they can get their title, their headline story out.
Russian disinformation.
And I think it was something like that in the political article that broke that story for them on that side of the uh fake news.
And what ticks me off as a former Intel guy, as a former national security guy, you know, chief of staff at DOD is you had not just some random Intel officials.
You had two directors of the CIA.
You had a director of the NSA.
You had a Secretary of Defense, you had senior executive service level administration officials in in intelligence who had been in there for decades, come out because the fake news media asked them to sign a letter that said Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation without any proof that it was so.
That in and of itself is a complete failure, not just by the media, but by these intelligence officials who rose to the highest ranks of government.
They're supposed to base their decision in reporting to the American public on facts, on evidence.
But the media got what it wanted.
Politico got what it wanted.
It got the headline, the tagline, Hunter Biden's laptop, Russian disinformation.
And the story got buried.
The truth is, not the story.
The truth got buried, and it went away for purposes of the election cycle.
One of these people that signed the official, his name is John Cypher.
I find it fascinating.
Uh pretty high-level CIA official is on record recently saying if this helped uh get Trump not elected, or you know, that I'm happy about having signed this letter at the time.
No, I'm glad you brought out this guy.
So this guy, John Cypher, was an ops officer, a senior ops officer in the Central Intelligence Agency.
It's a very high position.
He was in government for decades.
He rose to some of the highest positions at the CIA.
Then he publicly came out and signed this letter calling Hunter Biden's laptop Russian disinformation, he being John Cypher.
He tweeted out or promoted an article that Politico put out, which the headline was the laptop is Russian disinformation.
And later, um, just this past week, he, John Cypher, comes out and says what you just said, basically cheering the fact that he, an intelligence official, signed a document to perpetuate to push a false narrative that helped defeat Donald Trump.
That is why people believe there's a deep state yawn.
That is why people can't get it out of their minds.
It's not just Russia Gate now.
Now we're on to Hunter Biden and his laptop, and you have some of the most senior officials in government who were in government at the time cheering for Trump's failure on information they knew to be false or should have known to be false.
He's not the only one, Rush Travers is another guy that was in the Trump administration and later in the Biden administration, who basically came out this week.
He signed the letter, Russ Travers signed the letter, 51 intelligence officials.
Russ used to be the head of the counterterrorism center over at the Office of Director of National Intelligence under the Trump administration, and we removed him because we thought he was completely ineffective and totally political.
He comes out and doubles down this week, uh, just like John Seifer did.
He said, Well, at the time we were right to sign on to that letter because we were firing off a warning that it had hallmarks of Russian disinformation and Russia, Russia, Russia.
No, it didn't.
It had no hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
And all you were doing was putting out a political narrative into a presidential election cycle while you were a United States government official and you didn't have the information to support it.
And for our audience to remind them who Russ Travers is, he later went into the Biden administration and was in charge of the S visa program.
What's that?
That was a program responsible during the Afghan, the catastrophic Afghan evacuation that Joe Biden caused that was supposed to safely remove Afghan refugees to America by vetting them.
That process imploded under the leadership of Russ Travers.
So I just want our audience to have the complete picture of these intelligence officials were talking about.
Leon Panetta was another guy that uh signed the former Secretary of Defense and the former Central Intelligence Agency director signed this letter.
This man was on TV, Leon Panetta, just this past week discussing uh Joe Biden's quote unquote gaff about his call for regime change with Putin, and Leon Panetta went on TV and said Joe Biden did that because he's Irish, so he should Get a hall pass.
I can understand uh his his emotional feel about uh Putin not staying in office.
I think a lot of people would probably agree with that.
But at this point in the game, you really got to keep your messages very simple and very direct.
And I think this created some confusion uh that wasn't helpful.
Yes, I mean President Macron has said as much.
This has created, I think, more than confusion in terms of the tension that it has for people trying to negotiate with Putin.
And so why do you think President Biden made that mistake?
I I happen to think that Joe Biden uh, you know, is Irish uh really has a great deal of compassion when he sees that people are suffering.
Uh and I I think uh it overwhelmed him in the sense of seeing all the horrors that were resulting from this war.
I mean, you can't even make this stuff up for cartoons on Saturday morning, but you have this former Secretary of Defense and Central Intelligence Director who signed this letter, giving Joe Biden excuse for demanding regime change during wartime.
These are the people that signed this letter.
Yeah, and just for the record, President Biden clarified that he wasn't calling for regime change with what he said.
And but of course, a number of analysts have suggested that things like this can't be unsaid.
Yeah, and real quick, just while we're talking about Biden, remember the culmination of everything we've just talked about up to this point in the show, led Joe Biden uh to go out on national TV while he was running for president of the United States and say publicly that his son's laptop was Russian disinformation,
based on the 51 people that signed that letter saying it was so, even though that was false, based on the media pushing that fake narrative without any reference to the great reporting by the New York Post and others who led a corroborated, truthful story.
You have a presidential candidate feeding off the politicization of the intelligence community and the media to win a presidential election.
I think that is one of the biggest political hijackings in U.S. history.
Um, maybe second only to RussiaGate.
So I'm just gonna read uh social posts from Hans Manke, one of our uh analysts and also one of the hosts of Truth Over News, one of the epoch TV shows.
Great journals.
Absolutely.
Um so here he says this is kind of the evolution of the narrative around the laptop.
He says, number one, there is no laptop.
Number two, the laptop is a Russian plot.
Number three, Hunter didn't do anything wrong.
Number four, Hunter did some bad things, but they had nothing to do with Joe Biden.
And that's indeed kind of where we're at, because I I did I actually got an uh email from Washington Post PR today, basically talk there's there's one line that's actually quite notable in there that I want to kind of highlight.
The post did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from or new details about the transactions with CEFC, that's this Shanghai-based uh company that those that all this uh the verified emails that the Washington Post did are connected to, which took place after he had left the vice presidency and before he announced his intentions to run for the White House in 2020.
So essentially that's it seems like this is where they're they're landing right now, which is basically that there is something going on.
Um we we we know, of course, that there is an investigation, right?
That the DOJ has an investigation into Hunter Biden.
We've known that for a while.
Um but it but that uh the president isn't involved in any way in this.
Yeah.
They know at the time they're attacking a true story that the that what they are printing, the media is false.
Um they want that political narrative anyway because they want to hurt Donald Trump.
So they get anonymous sources or 51 senior intelligence officials from the past to come out and say, must be Russian disinformation.
Then a year, two years passes, and they, the purveyors of fake news, the Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times, Politico, come out and quietly try to say, well, we didn't really have it wrong, but um what the Washington Post is basically doing right now is we didn't get it wrong, but it looks like there might be something to it, but it doesn't lead to Joe Biden, and we are, you know, basically the most credible journalists on planet Earth because we are now coming forward and telling you so.
I think It just perpetuates the narrative that so many in America have come to see as a failure of bankruptcy in our in our media.
And these people have no, they literally have no ground they won't dig under to try and prop up their their bogus stories.
They were wrong on everything.
RussiaGate, Ukraine, now Hunter Biden's laptop, and I'll continue to watch Epoch Times to get my news.
And I I have read this with a little more nuance, perhaps, okay?
I don't know.
That's because you're smarter.
I don't know if every uh journalist is doing it exactly that way.
I suppose there will be these, there's certainly these kinds of operatives, right, in the corporate media and so forth.
But I I think it has to do with narratives.
You know, we live in this age of activist media and that where activist journalism, like i.e.
fulfilling prescribed proper narratives, is what people are actually taught at numerous journalism schools, unbelievably.
So I, you know, it just seems like whenever there's a narrative that's kind of the right narrative, it, you know, corporate media will kind of dive into that.
Doesn't matter if the facts are fully verified and push it like crazy.
But if there's something that's against narrative, even when there's plenty of information available, they'll just kind of avoid it or pick up the unverified things, like for example, this 50 Intel official letter, right, and push that because it's more on the narrative that they're looking at.
And in these scenarios, Jan, this is when this is pre-Donald Trump.
This is when the American public could rely on its institutions, its Department of Justice, its FBI, its intelligence community to come out and break through that bogus narrative that maybe a few uh journalistic uh shops were running with, uh, and we could then rely on the people we put or people who signed up to serve to get us to the truth.
Fast forward after Donald Trump's election and his presidency, we no longer have that trust.
That's the biggest problem.
That's why I've been highlighting this entire week on my truth social account, the people that I think failed their oaths of constitution in the Trump presidency that directly link to what we're talking about today, um, which is Hunter Biden's laptop.
And the American public, I just think has completely lost trust in these institutions.
The only people that haven't lost trust in these institutions are the same purveyors of fake news who have now partnered with people in the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, to get all their anonymous sourcing out and their fake reporting and their false reporting so they can have their narrative.
That's why I think so many in America have lost faith in not just journalists and the media, but our institutions that are supposed to uphold the law.
Well, and speaking of the FBI, I thought it was really fascinating just recently to see this testimony to the House Judiciary Committee by I guess it's the deputy director of the FBI responsible for cyber cy the cyber division, right?
Where he I think he's admitting that he doesn't know where the Hunter Biden laptop is.
I don't is is that how you see this?
I mean, that i I don't even know what to make of that.
Well, I don't know which part of that to tackle first.
Well, one, I'm glad the Judiciary Committee has members like Matt Gates who led this uh line of inquiry under oath, right?
Remember, these people, this assistant director at the FBI Vorn, testified under oath to Congress.
So because they have to, because there's a penalty if they lie, it's a criminal perjury charge.
The FBI structure, let me just give a quick overview, right?
So you have the director of the deputy director, and then you have what we call assistant directors.
And there's a only a handful of them.
So it's basically as high as you can go in the FBI.
This individual is the assistant director in charge for all of cybersecurity matters across the FBI, all investigations.
He is the guy that used to be Bill Priest and Peter Strack.
Just to put it in context.
That's how senior of a role this individual is.
We are talking about Hunter Biden's laptop.
It's a computer.
It's cyber by its definition.
There is no other definition in terms of what bucket that kind of investigation can fall under.
And Congressman Gates comes out and says, very simply, Mr. Assistant Director in charge of cybersecurity.
Where is Hunter Biden's laptop?
That's literally the question.
This individual, this assistant director at the FBI, under oath, on national TV says, quote, I don't know.
So where Is it the laptop?
Sir, I'm not here to talk about the laptop.
I'm here to talk about the FBI cyber program.
You are the assistant director of FBI Cyber.
I want to know where Hunter Biden's laptop is.
Where is it?
Sir, I don't know that answer.
That is astonishing to me.
Is has has FBI Cyber assessed whether or not Hunter Biden's laptop could be a point of vulnerability, allowing America's enemies to hurt our country.
Sir, the FBI's cyber program is based off of what's codified in Title 18 or Title 18, Section 1030, a code which talks about computer intrusions, right?
Using nefarious intent network.
Well, you've talked about passwords here.
I mean, Hunter Biden's password on his laptop was Hunter 02.
He drops it off at a repair store.
I'm holding the receipt from Max Computer Repair, where in December 2019, they turned over this laptop to the FBI.
And what now you're telling me right here is that as the assistant director of FBI Cyber, you don't know where this is after it was turned over to you three years ago.
Yes, sir, that's an accurate statement.
To me, that is one of the most shocking answers.
Someone who is supposed to have so much responsibility at the FBI regarding all cybersecurity investigations, doesn't know where the laptop of the son of the current president is, when that laptop is the centerpiece of a criminal investigation that's been made public by the United States Attorney's Office in the District of Delaware.
And this guy doesn't know where it is.
Maybe he doesn't think it's important.
I mean, I like this is the part I'm trying to figure this out.
I mean, they didn't lose it, right?
Well, I I hope not, but the problem is this guy doesn't know where it is.
But we for sure know, thanks to reporting from Epoch Times and so many others, that the laptop in question was picked up by the FBI.
What do they do with it if this guy doesn't know where it is?
They give it back to Hunter Biden?
My question is, did they exploit it?
The U.S. attorney who's responsible for bringing criminal charges, um, like I did when I was a federal prosecutor, has the case.
The FBI is supposed to be exploiting, as we call, looking into the data and exfiltring the data from the laptop to see if there is criminality on that laptop, as was put out by the New York Post and so many other people who have reported on Hunter Biden's pay-for-play scandals with the Ukraine, with Russia, with China.
Are there other crimes involving minor children on there?
That's been put out.
There's these hard, hard uh data emails that have come out suggesting other types of criminal behavior.
And you would think the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who's responsible for being the law enforcement agency that I used to work with all the time to run this investigation, you would think its leadership would know about it.
Either this investigation is so stovepiped that only the deputy director and director know about it, which I find hard to believe, or this individual is covering up for someone below him for political reasons.
It's the same thing that caused America to lose faith in the actions of Bill Priestep and and Peter Strzok when they held these positions.
Because you all saw our audience and the world saw what they did to the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia Gate investigation, and how they politicized that investigation, intentionally misled federal courts, lied to them, broke the loss, illegally surveilled a presidential candidate, and then the president of the United States.
Now, round two, Hunter Biden's laptop, this new guy comes in the seat and basically is running the same story as they did back then.
Oh, I don't know, nothing, nothing to see here.
So now we're gonna need a serious congressional investigation.
Um I just don't think you'll see that until the November midterm elections are over and the gavel switch.
It seems like you're making a prediction there, but we'll we won't go there right now.
Okay.
Um well, actually, the the final thing I wanted to talk about, Re, the Hunter Biden laptop and everything around it, is that uh former Attorney General Bill Barr has been actually talking about this.
And he, you know, kind of expressed surprise at um what you mentioned earlier, which was then candidate Joe Biden's sort of reinforcing the the media and uh former Intel uh community member uh narratives that were out there, can you know, of course, to support his own election.
Yeah, so what I find shocking, especially as someone who served at the Department of Justice in its National Security Division, you know, one of the best jobs I ever had, prosecuting terrorists, that an attorney general would become so politicized himself and put the the needs of selling his book above the oath that he took to the Constitution.
And the hypocrisy is laid out in what you just um alluded to, Jan.
So when Bill Barr was the attorney general, mind you, he has a high security clearance in America as the number one law enforcement officer, um, he has access to all the intelligence I had access to when I was deputy director of national intelligence and later chief of staff of the Department of Defense.
And we know for a fact that the former director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe, who I worked with, um, and we, he and I, would brief Bill Barr on occasion.
Um, John Ratcliffe came out and said that the Hunter Biden laptop story is not Russian disinformation.
He, the spy chief who reviewed all the intelligence, came out and said that, which I think is the right move for the public to at least know.
Now, he rightly so didn't get into the underlying cables and contents and classified intelligence, but he was making a statement for the public benefit.
Why Bill Barr didn't, as a number one law enforcement officer who's supposedly running an investigation because the FBI reports to DOJ, come out and say, we have this investigation.
Uh we also saw all the intel that the director of national intelligence alluded to.
We agree with him, this is not Russian disinformation.
Could have put it to bed right then and there.
Didn't have to reveal the contents of the investigation, how long it had been going, who are the targets.
I know all about that and the sensitivity around it, and he didn't have to divulge any classified information to say that.
Fast forward now, after Bill Barr stayed silent then, now Bill Barr is screaming at the top of his lungs during his book tour that President Trump was wrong to during the election cycle to go out and try to pull Joe Biden into the Russia Gate investigation hoax scandal.
Why the two different standards from the attorney general two-time attorney general of the United States of America?
Why did he stay silent when there was no need to because the evidence was presented to him, the irrefutable evidence was presented to him, and now when he has the opportunity to go out and bash his former boss to sell his book, he is the one that's being political.
He is the one that is politicizing the Justice Department all for monetary gain.
And I think that is just another reason, yet another reason why America's belief in our leadership at places like the DOJ and the FBI and the CIA and the NSA has crumbled and it's almost non-existent unless you are just some political hack out there.
And to get it back is going to take a massive turnaround.
It's going to take investigations like the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, like the Russia Gay investigation, the John Durham investigation, to hold people accountable for breaking the law, for failing to do their jobs, and then getting that information out to the public truthfully through a media that just doesn't want to report anything that makes uh President Trump look like he was right.
Well, you know, it it this is interesting to me, right?
Because Bill Barr, you know, ostensibly did some good work around exposing the whole Russia, the false rush Trump Russia collusion narrative and so forth.
Well, I would disagree that he did that work.
You know, we there's a collective we in there, folks at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, guys like Johnny Ratcliffe, Rick Rennell, Devin Nunes, who was in the Intel Committee, Jim Jordan, just to name a few, so many other folks, ran these investigations and found the FBI and DOJ's own documents and had to present them to Bill Barr as the attorney general to say, is someone looking into this?
You know, that's congressional oversight at its at its purest form.
Because they can't start a legal um prosecution.
And so after we just presented mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence, finally Bill Barr put John Durham in place.
And thankfully so, I agree that was the right move because there was no uh there was no career prosecutor who could handle that case.
That is the actual purpose of the special counsel statute, the regulation.
Not the way Bob Mueller was appointed when James Comey, I believe, Lee classified information to have his buddy appointed special counsel to run the quote-unquote Russia Gate investigation oversight.
Um, John Durham was an actual special counsel with the right legal authorities looking at the right things, and Bill Barr appointed him based on what we were showing him.
But he had seen the evidence.
He, Bill Barr, had been briefed by people who had been working on that matter for years.
Take me out of the equation.
But you had senior leadership in Congress, you had cabinet level secretaries, people who are working these matters and seeing the intelligence and saying something must be done.
And the only place it can happen is the Justice Department and the FBI and Bill Barr was the leader leader of it.
So I don't I wouldn't say he did it, but I would say John Durham is doing it.
But I would say Bill Barr had the opportunity to correct a narrative that was completely false that he knew was false in the middle of a presidential election cycle, and he failed to do it.
And I think, and I will say this forever, he failed his oath of office as the attorney general when he failed to put out the false narrative about Russian disinformation surrounding Hunter Biden's laptop.
So let's dive back into Russia gay, Trump Russia collusion, and kind of this amazing scoop that the Washington examiner has, which is basically that there appears to be some accountability that's uh being affected here.
I'll read the headline one more time.
Um FEC finds DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax.
And we both, you know, read this and we're pretty fascinated.
So the FEC, responsible for the Federal Election Commission, is responsible for overseeing federal elections, such as a presidential election.
And what political campaigns, the Hillary Clinton, excuse me, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Trump campaign, what the FEC does is monitor the way they spend their money.
And these campaigns are spending hundreds of millions of dollars.
Hillary Clinton campaign spent north of a billion dollars with a B. But those contributions that pour in from outside individuals and companies and things like that, they can only be spent a certain way by the candidate per the law.
And the FEC is the referee of that.
So what we knew when we ran the Russia Gate investigation, uh Chairman Nunes and I, and we exposed that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the steel dossier, an opposition research hit job.
We had proven that some years ago.
What the Coolidge Reagan Foundation did uh pursuant to the article was based on our investigation, said, wait a second, FEC, you as a political campaign cannot spend political dollars launching opposition research, false or otherwise.
And so they put in a letter like three years ago, and the FEC finally talk about delayed accountability, but finally came around and said the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC illegally spent millions of dollars of the political contributions on opposition research, i.e.
fusion GPS, steel dossier, bruise sword, Nelly Or, Fiona Hill, and all that entire crew of uh of miscreants.
And so they find them.
That's the FEC's job.
And the Hillary Clinton campaign could have said, uh, we disagree with your finding, we're gonna go to court.
What did the Hillary Clinton campaign do?
I believe it's in the article.
They said they agree to the finding of probable cause by the FEC, which means they're basically agreeing that it happened, because they know, like we've always said, follow the money, and it's pretty hard to say otherwise when you can show a bank wire paying for X, Y, or Z, and in this case, pay paying for opposition research.
And so the Hillary Clinton campaign is not contesting it.
They're paying the fine, it basically admitting that they did this, and they're out is we just don't want a protracted legal deal.
As if, as if the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC ever shied away from taking something or someone to court, especially when it shows them how wrong they were to violate the law and spend campaign, political campaign dollars on hit job opposition research pieces for then candidate Trump.
All of which, remind the audience, was then used intentionally by the FBI, even though they knew it was false to go to a federal secret court and surveil a presidential candidate and later a president of the United States.
So but you said basically admitting, but they're not actually admitting, right?
Well, I think they are, because as a former lawyer, when you when you decide not to contest something and there's a judgment levied against you and you issue payment for that judgment, what are you going to walk out of court and say, I didn't do anything wrong, but here's a check for 10 million dollars.
I mean I think the public sees what that is.
It's their way of burying the narrative because if they contested it, what happens?
More media coverage, more people start looking into these things.
The FEC might go, wait a second, we not only are we going to find you this amount of money, but we believe you broke these other laws relating campaign contributions.
So now your fee goes up and maybe there was criminal conduct involved.
So they from their perspective are probably saying how do we just get this to not be a story?
And of course the mainstream media will not cover this but we will and it's it is another sign as you you you let off with Jan of accountability an actual monetary judgment levied against the Clinton campaign of the DNC that is being paid for their wrongful conduct I think is a a massive step in the right direction to restore faith to some of these institutions.
I think guys like John Durham are where we uh where we hope to see the biggest form of accountability down the road.
You know Cash it's really remarkable at this point to see accountability some sort of accountability happen.
I know certainly a lot of our viewers have been asking this question will there be any accountability in here at least there's some although you know many would argue of course that a lot more needs to happen.
I think you're right you know it's the reason many people get into government is to hold people outside of government accountable.
But when your internal apparatuses of government and its leadership fail like we showed with RussiaGate and like our investigation got 17 people from the FBI and DOJ fired or retired early that's a step towards accountability.
This FEC fine is another step towards accountability.
But me as a former federal prosecutor, maybe I'm biased, but the ultimate step of accountability, which the American public is waiting for, is comes in the form of indictments, especially to those people who violated their oath of office, because that's a privilege that they served in that capacity And they've broke, I believe broke the law.
So I think John Durham's got a few more indictments coming.
I don't know I could be wrong but when he does we'll be covering it here.
Well let's jump to our shout out then.
So this week's shout out goes to Arthur Bochuti.
Thanks so much for your comments on our board at Cash's Corner and thank you everybody who comments on that board.
