Kash Patel: Newly Released FBI Notes Expose Their Own Lies and Conspiracy Against Trump | Kash’s Corner
“In March of 2017 … [then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe] is admitting—in a meeting with the team running the Russiagate investigation—that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Trump Tower,” according to newly released FBI notes, says Kash Patel.These handwritten FBI and DOJ notes incriminate top officials and expose a conspiracy against Donald Trump, Kash says.“As the lead Russiagate investigator, I never saw these notes. We asked for them. And they told us—they, the Department of Justice, the FBI—told us they did not exist.”In this episode, Kash explains what he’s found in these newly released documents and why the judge’s recent order in the Michael Sussmann case was not a huge blow to special counsel John Durham’s case, unlike what many have claimed.Kash and Jan also take a look at the firestorm of protests occurring outside the homes of Supreme Court justices since the leak of a draft ruling on Roe v. Wade. Will the justices be influenced?
We have looked at all your comments, and we are going to give you the full details on how to obtain the Epoch Times exclusive spygate infographic signed by me.
We'll give you all the details at the end of the show.
So Cash, it is quite actually quite amazing how many people are interested in this infographic.
It's got a number of years on it.
I mean, I I don't know how many, and but it's aged really well.
Well, that's what the truth does, Jan.
It ages well, and it's required no corrections.
And personally, if I can take a second, as the chief investigator of the Russia Gate hoax, it is my favorite poster infograph ever produced by anyone in the media, and the Epoch Times nailed it, which is why our audience wants it, and as an added bonus, I'm gonna sign it for them.
So once again, uh John Durham is kind of delivering for us for the show here.
It's quite amazing.
Actually, in this case, it's the defense, uh, some of some of their submissions we're gonna look at.
And also this new judge's order that, you know, there's some kind of pros and cons from uh your perspective.
We're gonna find out a little bit about that today.
Um, but we're sitting, you know, not steps away from the Supreme Court right now, where there's, of course, we discussed last week, there's all sorts of protests in response to this draft ruling by uh uh Justice Alito being leaked.
And in fact, from what I understand, all six of the conservative justices' homes have protests in front of them.
And so I let's start talking about this because there's actually federal law that is supposed to prevent behavior in front of judges' homes that would influence their decision making, which is presumably the purpose of the protests in the first place.
So lay this out for me.
Yeah, no, I'm glad we're starting on this topic.
We'll get to all things, John Durham, and I think uh our folks in the audience should go back and quickly look at last week's uh episode, how we set up the Supreme Court and how we talked about the leak and the investigation.
The unfortunate next step that we have to discuss now is these quote unquote protests slash riots that are kind of occurring in front of Supreme Court home justices homes.
There's a federal law.
It's United States Code 1507.
It basically says, and rightfully so, that no judge, not just Supreme Court justices, but federal judges, district court judges, circuit court of appeals judges, and Supreme Court justices who are the final arbiter of the law on the land, they should not be forced to sway their decision based on public posturing in their private places, their homes, and or sometimes even their offices, depending on how close the folks get and how threatening they are.
What we're seeing as a result of the unprecedented and what I call unlawful leak by someone at the Supreme Court of the draft opinion for Roe v.
Wade has led to another tectonic shift in how the media portrays it.
Some in the media, literally, Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago has said it is okay for us to have a call to arms based on the draft opinion in Roe v.
MSNBC has repeatedly postured and parodied that same uh violent rhetoric.
And the law why is it violent?
Why is it violent?
Well, when you say a leader of a city, the one of the biggest cities in America, and a network that is watched by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people a week, goes out and said a call to arms is okay.
That's literally inciting violence by telling people it's okay to arm themselves with whether it's firewap fire weapons or uh weapons period or any kind of incendiary devices, and they're saying it's okay.
Heads of law enforcement and the media are saying that's okay because they're so upset at what they believe to be the pending decision from the Supreme Court on Roe v.
Wade, and a reminder audience, there is no decision yet.
It hasn't come out, so you don't know what it says.
Um but circling back to the justices, there's a specific federal statute, United States Code 1507 that says that protects them.
And it should.
It should protect all judges.
You know, a lot of our justices who are in the federal court system who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the United States Senate, it's an extensive process for life tenure, should have the protection that the decisions they make in any trial, whether it's a high publicity trial or trial that gets no publicity, that their decisions cannot be swayed because they're gonna go out to their car and find a mob, or they're gonna go home where their wife and their husband and their children and their grandparents are and find angry protesters in the street.
They should not have to endure that, and that's why that law is in place.
And uh tragically, Yon, some of these justices had to relocate based on some of these protests.
And that should never happen in America.
That's not our model of American jurisprudence.
And for the world to see that it happening in the United States of America, because the left has shown their hypocrisy on selectively picking what matters that you can have a call to arms on for what you can't, just shows the bankruptcy in their position from a credibility and a legal standpoint.
And if the sh I don't want to say the shoe are on the other foot, but if the situation were turned around and it was a conservative or moderately Republican-based group protesting in front of justices' homes, uh, I think the uh left-wing mainstream media would have quite the different reaction.
I don't know what this Justice Department is going to do.
I don't have much confidence that they're gonna be prosecuting anyone under this code.
Well, and so how does actual enforcement work in this case?
It's federal law, right?
So who's doing the enforcement, who should be doing the enforcement, right?
No, great question.
So as everybody knows, we have a state court system and a state law system and a federal court system and a federal law system.
Justices of the Supreme Court are federal court officers.
So whenever a federal agent or a federal officer or someone working for the federal government is involved, generally, and this is generally speaking, a crime involving them because of their federal duty is a federal offense.
So the federal law is the one we just talked about.
Thus, who should be investigating it?
Federal authorities.
Now that can be a range of the different investigatory agencies we agencies we have, but generally speaking, it's the FBI.
Um if it involves firearms and explosives, it can be the ATF, the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives, um, the Department of Homeland Security come in can come in and assist.
It's a different um mishmash of agencies that can get involved, but it should be one or a combination of those agencies.
And we're not seeing that.
Well, we're not seeing them overtly at least, right?
I mean it's possible that they're infiltrating the protests.
We know that they do that, right?
Um, we know that they do that from the January 6th, you know, not to get marred down in that, but we know now from the FBI and the Whitmer case in Michigan, where Governor Whitmer's case, uh the defendants were just acquitted, that the FBI inserted agents and undercover officers and sources into both the January 6th events around the Capitol and at Whitmer's um sort of quote unquote uh trial where they said her life was threatened.
But getting back to the Supreme Court justices, you're right.
Most of these investigations should not be made public, but this attorney general, because the matter is of such grave public importance, has a duty to inform the public whether or not an investigation has lease ongoing.
That's all he has to say.
He doesn't have to talk about the details.
He doesn't he owes no obligation other to reveal the details to anyone, and because of the sensitivity of it, I would not.
Being a former national security prosecutor, that's how we operated.
If we were investigating someone of great public importance, and we thought that the the public should at least know that fact, we did it.
You know, we did it with Russia Gate, um, and that was Obama's Justice Department, and Trump did it with many other high-profile matters that we handled during his administration.
So it should be no different, but for some reason under this attorney general it is.
So the Virginia Attorney General is proposing to use uh basically state law to do the enforcement around this.
Well, not only that, but Governor Yuncan just authorized the use of state authorities to protect the Supreme Court justices, which I found um very interesting because he's the governor.
He's a chief enforcement officer of the state of Virginia and the state of Virginia laws.
And that's an interesting twist because I think he feels that the federal government isn't doing the job necessary to secure uh their safety and the safety of their families.
Now state law could state law could also operate from a district attorney level to say that the riots or protests um in front of their homes, the justices' homes, are breaking numerous local statutes such as disorderly conduct and equivalent statutes.
A lot of times what you have, quick example, you have murder in the federal statutes and you have murder at the state level.
The language is pretty close, if not identical in most instances.
It's just the players are different uh when you apply federal law versus state law.
So it's no different here in the state, the Virginia and Maryland for that matter, their district attorney's offices and their local law enforcement police could come in and say we are investigating those who are impeding on the justices' ability to perform their law if a similar statute exists.
Yeah, and also uh the White House spokesperson Jen Saki uh weighed in on this.
I'm actually gonna read what she said.
Um she said the protests have been peaceful to date, and we certainly continue to encourage that.
That's what she told basically reporters at a recent press conference.
Your thoughts?
Outrageous.
As the White House press secretary, she's the spokesperson for not only the White House, but the President of the United States.
And she's going to the podium, just like the mainstream media and parroting almost language that is permitting, I should say, an avenue towards violence.
Why wouldn't this president come out and the press secretary come out and say protests near the homes of Supreme Court justices are off limits?
If they did that, a lot of that mob and a lot of those angry protesters would listen.
But they are encouraging it.
And they are saying it's okay to gather and protest in front of Supreme Court Justices' homes.
I just want to highlight she she was saying that uh it the protests have been peaceful, and I want to continue to encourage that, right?
That was that was her uh she's not it doesn't sound like she's advocating for a Biden.
No, but I think that's a sleight of hand if I'm being honest.
What the White House should say is in this instance, stay away from the justices of the Supreme Court.
All nine of them.
Not five of them, not four of them, not six of them, all nine of them.
Not just today, but forever.
I can't recall another instance where the justices of the Supreme Court have been ganged up on and where a White House has come in and said, well, if you do it peacefully, it's sort of it, you know, it's kind of okay.
That's what happens when you get the epicenter of government to go ahead and say, it's fine now, so you get more and more and more and more people there, and then there's going to be a limit where it breaks, and then you and I are having a conversation a month or two, and we say, well, did the White House encourage that?
And I'm gonna tell you they did.
All right.
Well, looks like the nation is gonna keep watching what happens here.
Um let's jump to Durham.
Um I find it really, really, really interesting that Sussman's defense attorneys have basically pulled all this discovery material and basically, you know, presented it in an effort to I I I guess uh, you know, save Sussman, but in the process, I mean, unmistakably they've unearthed all sorts of interesting material that we just we didn't even know about.
Yeah, and I think Yan, what you're referring to, you know, is discovery by the government is never as a prosecutor, we don't publish it in the media, we don't release it to the media.
We make filings to the court.
And the defense took, as we call exhibits, which are certain documents that the government turned over to Sussman's legal team.
And they specifically took those, and what we're gonna talk about are handwritten notes from top-level FBI agents and lawyers and the general counsel of the FBI and others who are at the epicenter of Russia Gate, their own handwritten notes and their own emails from Justice Department officials talking about meetings uh involving Michael Sussman's case, and they put them on blast for the world to see by adding them as attachments to their motion.
And what most people don't know is that as a former federal public defender, were I to file motions like that, and I did, I would have kept the ad the exhibits uh under seal.
I would not have, I would have filed my motion, but the exhibits would have been uh something that if it ignored to the benefit of my clients, I wouldn't allow the public to see this.
And again, on the half dozen or more episodes we've done on special counsel Durham's uh prosecutions in this case, we've always said, I've always said that the defense has strategically overplayed their hand.
And they got so far down that track that there's no going back for them.
So I think this is another extension, another example of them overplaying their hand.
This was another monumental blunder by the defense, and uh they're making it increasingly uh difficult for them to portray an actual defense at trial to the jury.
And I'm just I'm gonna read uh a headline from you know two of our top Russia Gate analysts, Hans Manke and Jeff Carlson.
So they they believe uh the new Department of justice notes reveal FBI panic after Trump tweeted he knew he was being spied on.
Well, not only do they reveal FBI panic, they show FBI lies by the people that perpetrated the Russia Gate hoax.
Andy McCabe, the deputy director of the FBI, and I remind our audience.
As deputy director of the FBI, Andy McCabe lied to federal officials at the inspector general's office about him, Andy McCabe, leaking information to the media while he was the deputy director of the FBI.
That's why he got fired for no other reason.
It involves individuals like Peter Strzok, who was the number two federal agent at the counterintelligence division of the FBI, who lied in both his book, which he went on a book tour to sell.
He lied to the FISA court when he applied for a federal search warrant to surveil President Trump's campaign.
And the basis of that lie is now exposed in the documents that the defense in Suspense case has put out for the world to see.
So I think what Hans and Company wrote about is accurate, but I think it falls short of how disastrous this is for the defense.
But we're thankful for it because it helps us educate the American public on how corrupt these officials were from Andy McCabe, from Peter Strock, from the likes of Bill Priestapp and Sussman and Clinton World and Mark Elias, and the list goes on to Fusion GPS.
Let's remind our audience and let's see if I get this right.
Because so Strack basically, in his book, he writes, I believe, that it was President Trump's tweet, kind of, you know, goading Russia to sarcastically to release information, at least that's that's how he described it.
Um that got Alexander Downer to provide information that would then initiate the whole Russia Gate probe, right?
Nelly.
But but it turns out that actually the dates don't work exactly right.
The funny funny thing about, you know, chronology and dates is you can't really make them up and you can't dance around them.
But you can if you withhold from the federal court, the federal judges, and the American public selective information because you want to parrot a political narrative against a certain individual, in this case, their target being Donald Trump and his campaign, that you want to make true.
And as a federal agent and as a former federal prosecutor myself, that is the most egregious conduct you can do.
You can perform because you're entrusted with these responsibilities to enforce the law and not break it.
And what Strack did extremely disappointing for someone who worked with the FBI as I did for so many years.
And it blemishes the tens of thousands of federal agents that we have in this country.
Here's what he did.
You're right, your summaries spot on, Jon.
But I want to take it a little deeper.
What Peter Strzok did was he said, President Trump, and this I'm taking our audience back in time to about the spring of 2017 and before, when Peter Strzok is the head agent working on FISA warrants to surveil President Trump and his campaign.
He's going before a federal court and lying about the sequencing and the cause of the investigation.
Let's go back before that further.
The electronic communication, which I believe we can post now because it's been unclassified, at least uh in large part, the EC, which launched the entire crossfire hurricane Russia Gate investigation for the FBI, which was written by Peter Strack and signed off on by Peter Strack, saying these are the reasons we must investigate Donald Trump and his campaign.
We now find out that Peter Strack lied about the reasons why that investigation was started.
And he got caught.
And he got caught by his own writing and by his own documentation, and as you said, dates don't lie.
Donald Trump's notation or tweet or whatever you want to call it about hey Russia, I think, you know, and I'll paraphrase if you're listening, you know, let's get some emails.
He buried the fact that the WikiLeaks DNC leak had occurred.
And that is why Donald Trump issued a statement or tweet about about it in a half-joking manner.
And he said, no, no, no, it's Donald Trump who ticked off the FBI, this guy Alexander Downer, who's an Australian diplomat in London talking to Americans and saying there's a threat to democracy, we have to use this as justification for our investigation.
Can you imagine, Jan, if a federal law enforcement agent launched an investigation on you or your family or friends, whatever the violation was, based on fraudulent information and known lies?
Why should it be any different, the consequences for a guy like Peter Strzok when he launched this investigation against a candidate for president of the United States?
And then it carried over those lies.
Now I'm gonna tie this together, those lies carried over from the start of the investigation in the summer and spring of 2016, all throughout the four FISA warrants, and these notes show in March of 2017 when this meeting occurred, and Strzok's notes are in here, that he per perpetuated and continued that lie even though he knew it was false.
He repeatedly lied to the federal officers and judicial officers at the FISA court, saying our investigation is righteous for these reasons, and he got caught, then he wrote a book and sold it, and the mainstream media let him have at it, and now John Durham has caught him lying.
I think he's got big trouble when it comes to uh from a prosecution perspective.
I'll just read a quote from Strock here.
Um you don't think that him getting the dates wrong is quote, a little error?
A little error?
I think it's a little arrogant that a 17-year agent of the FBI, the number two counterintelligence agent for the entire Federal Bureau of Investigation, the individual charged by the FBI, James Comey and Andy McCabe to run not just the Trump investigation, but the Hillary Clinton email server investigation got a date, a date of important significance wrong as a little error.
That is a gargantuan lie, and Peter Strock has gotten caught, and that's probably why the defense isn't gonna call him as a witness, because he would get shredded on cross-examination, and I imagine he'd be taking the fifth even if anyone called him anyway.
So it's it's interesting.
We haven't actually talked about Strack in quite some time, and it it is kind of amazing that he would call it a little error.
Um there's a whole bunch of other people that are involved here that are actually named in these notes.
And actually, some of these people are people that you worked with directly, from what I recall.
So what g give us an outline?
Like how how how are these people connected to you and and and what what are you seeing here?
So as a former terrorism prosecutor at the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, I worked with many top-level officials there and in the FBI.
Uh before Andy McKay was deputy director of the FBI, he was uh what we call the ADIC, the head of the Washington Field Office for the FBI, pretty high-level position.
I worked with him on national security cases there.
You know, one of the most surprising things I saw in these notes is that they involved the cast of characters that we had exposed as the perpetrators of Russia Gatehoa's.
Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Tashina Gahar, Bill Prestap, and others at the FBI and DOJ, but I was surprised to learn that these notes specifically involved then acting attorney general Dana Bente, the number the head of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
And they involve James Comey's chief of staff, James Rybicke, who's also in these notes, who I also worked with.
So, you know, it's problematic for me personally because as a lead Russia Gate investigator, I never saw these notes.
We asked for them, and they told us, they, the Department of Justice and the FBI told us they did not exist.
Which I think shows another lie and another cover-up for uh perpetrating this hoax by taking false information to a federal court.
Just very briefly though, what is the kind of recourse in this sort of situation?
If in a congressional investigation you ask for something that's you know ostensibly must be given to you or to the to the congressional member of the committee, and it it it isn't, and then it turns out that the situation is as you described here.
Like what's the recourse at this point?
That's the problem.
People want accountability, and I don't know how they're gonna get it.
You know, Toshina Gahar, for example, the at the time Rod Rosenstein's number one in the deputy attorney general's office for national security, who I knew when I was a chief investigator.
I called her, I sent her emails and I said, Look, this didn't happen on your watch, but can you help us clean it up?
Can you provide us with the information?
Why didn't you provide me with your emails?
Why didn't you provide me with these notes that I know you knew about now because you're in the meeting and your name is there and you're scheduling the meeting per one of the exhibits that Michael Sussman has put forth through his defense.
Why didn't you give that information to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a member of the gang of eight?
Why didn't Peter Strzok's notes, why weren't they transposed to us at the House Intelligence Committee when we subpoenaed congressionally the Department of Justice and the FBI for all notes and matters relating to Russia Gate and the FISA application process, which is what is at the heart of this matter?
Why didn't we get more information from Andy McCabe when I put him under oath and deposed him years ago about these very meetings?
Why is it now a surprise?
Because they hit it.
They lied to the American people, and I think that's why our audience needs to focus on these notes.
Most people are like, oh, it's just a couple of exhibits that are meaningless.
And Jan, we haven't even gotten to the biggest part about these notes that I think is of consequence that our audience should know about.
So Cash, presumably you mean some of these notes uh written by Andy McCabe.
There were a few that kind of jumped out at me.
One of them very obviously, um, so here he says uh quote, can't say what had occurred historically between Alpha Bank and Trump server.
Interesting, isn't it?
It's shocking.
I mean, interesting is putting it mildly, Yan, the deputy director of the FBI in a meeting in March of 2017 with Peter Strack, with Tashina Gahar, with the acting attorney general, with uh Bill Priestap and others, um, and James Baker, the general counsel then of the FBI, is admitting in a meeting with the team running the Russia Gate investigation that there is no connection between Alpha Bank and Trump Tower.
When did he know that?
Why didn't he testify that when I interrogated him under oath at the House Intel Committee?
The fact that the deputy director of the FBI, who I would remind our audience with later, when James Comey was fired, Andy McCabe became acting director of the FBI.
Andy McCabe signed the final FISA warrant as a top FBI official, which the law requires, before it's taken to the FISC.
And what does that mean?
It means he's verifying the authenticity and accuracy of the reporting in that FISA.
And that statement that you just read shows that Andy McCabe knowingly lied to a federal court.
And there are serious consequences of that.
I just don't know if this DOJ is going to pursue them.
But going back to the facts of the underlying statement, he's now demonstrating that he knew, for whatever reasons, what we've shown to be true all along.
There was no Alpha Bank server connection.
It was a total fraud.
And that goes to the heart of the Michael Sussman case because Michael Sussman, reminding our audience, is charged with lying about who his client was when he peddled the Alpha Bank information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was run by then deputy director Andy McCabe.
It is, you know, I don't even have words for how disappointed I am in federal law enforcement officers who I used to work with who could just go in to meetings, go in to a federal judge's chambers, go before a federal court, and lie.
With such wanton disregard for the law, Jan, just you know, yeah, it's disappointing for me as a public defender and former national security prosecutor, but now I know why America's trust has been totally shattered when it comes to the FBI and their ability to maintain impartiality and not base investigations on political favors.
And let me remind our audience another thing about Andy McCabe.
His wife was running for state office in Virginia at the time of the Russia Gate investigation that he was leading.
His wife received $700,000 from Hillary Clinton World for her elected office race.
How is an officer so high in government, so involved in the Clinton email investigation, so involved in lying about the Russia Gate investigation?
How is it that Andy McCabe, who was deputy director, lied to federal law enforcement officials in the inspector general's office about leaking information to the media?
How is that man not in handcuffs now?
How was he ever placed in a position of such trust and great public importance?
To me, it's it's it's the worst part of the Russia Gate investigation, um, putting aside the fact that there were characters like Adam Schiff and Swalwell and company running around peddling false information.
As a federal law enforcement agent, you know better, and he violated the oath he took on day one.
And uh, you know, telling the public about it is step one, but I hope John Durham is investigating that man uh for perpetuating a fraud uh before the FISA court.
There's another line actually from Andy McCabe that you pointed out when we were you know preparing for the show that I didn't actually see the significance of, but I want to I'm gonna read it here.
And so he's it's one line.
He says we have an enduring effort, re-Russians.
Reminding our audience, these notes show that these this meeting occurred in March of 2017.
This meeting occurred with the acting attorney general, the deputy director of the FBI, the head of the counterintelligence division, the top lawyers for national security at the Department of Justice, and the general counsel for the FBI, and who knows who else, right?
We just know these are the characters listed in their own notes.
In March of 17, in March of 2017, I remind our audience, the FBI was getting ready for its third FISA application against a sitting, now sitting president in Donald Trump and his camp and his campaign associates.
You have the deputy director of the FBI, who's responsible for verifying the authenticity and truth in that application to a federal court, saying in writing, that we, the FBI and the DOJ, have an enduring Russia threat and investigation.
That means he lied in that meeting yet again.
By that point, in March of 2017, I'll remind our audience, it was proven to the FBI that Christopher Steele's dossier was total BS and full of fraudulent information.
And Andy McCabe knew about that.
On top of that, it was proven that Christopher Steele lied and went to the media and was fired by the FBI for breaking the source code rule number one.
Don't tell anyone about your relationship with the FBI.
And it was after Andy McCabe lied about leaking to the media about the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
So that's why, to me, this is the most disturbing and damning statement.
After all of that, knowing all of that and being the number two officer and on his way to being the number one officer at the FBI, he still is telling everyone we have an enduring investigation, a righteous investigation, that we have to continue to tell lies to a federal court, get another, not just one search warrant, but then go back to that federal court, the FISA court, and get the fourth search warrant that Andy McCabe himself signed because he was so hell-bent on finding Russian collusion that never existed.
To me, that is the biggest problem I have ever seen uncovered in the entire Russia Gate hoax.
And it falls at Andy McCabe's fate along with Peter Strzok, who is his top lieutenant while they perpetuated this fraud.
And we've been over the reasons why Strox, I made a mistake line, doesn't hold water.
And it's the same reasons that the defense's attempt to utilize these notes to their benefit is going to fail disastrously for them at trial.
I think to see the significance of some of these things, you really have to have kind of you really had to have have to see the whole picture as you'd had to in order to do this work.
I mean, absolutely fascinating.
Let's talk a little bit about the judge's order.
I mean, so uh some people are unhappy from what I've seen and and commentary and so forth that the judge is uh basically saying he doesn't want to distract the jury from trying to figure out a whole a whole conspiracy case if that case hasn't actually been charged by Durham.
It's almost like Durham is uh, you know, sort of being put on the hook for adding some extra charges or something like that.
You're not far off.
Look, as prosecutors, if you're wending 95% of your pretrial motions, which is what's happening in this Susman prosecution, and I remind our audience that the rest of that order is granting John Durham entry of all the evidence that we've talked about in past episodes.
We won't rehash that.
But you bring up an interesting point that I actually think is of less consequent, much less consequence than the public and the media are making it out to be.
It's almost if they're saying, you know, John Durham just suffered a big blow.
It's not.
So what the judge is saying is it's his discretion under the law, which is accurate on whether or not to allow certain information regarding a conspiracy that's not charged to come in during court.
And the conspiracy, the underlying conspiracy that he's talking about, doesn't have to be unlawful per the federal statute and the federal case law.
So what John Durham wanted to do was talk about the joint venture conspiracy between all the folks that we've talked about in the past, Fusion GPS, the FBI, the Clinton campaign, the DNC, the media, and so many others, you know.
The judge came in and said getting into that too deep would involve a trial within the trial, a mini trial.
And I'll remind our audience before I continue.
The judge now has seen more evidence and information than anyone else in this case, except for maybe John Durham.
Because the judge granted John Durham's in-camera ex parte request previously that we talked about to review classified and unclassified information that the government that John Durham has in his possession that he wants to use at trial.
He's now seen all of that.
And what he's basically said to John Durham, and I've had this happen to me as a federal prosecutor, is you know, there's these motions and liminate these pretrial motions.
I gotta give the defense something.
And I have so, you know, the judge has a responsibility to protect the record, as we say.
He he wants, if a conviction is sustained in his court before him, he doesn't want an appellate court to reverse it because he got some evidentiary issue wrong.
So he's basically saying this is a little too much.
You you, John Durham don't need it.
Basically, I think you've proven your case in chief.
But if you, John Durham want to charge the defendant or others with a conspiracy, then I'll let all that information come in.
He's almost goading John Durham into doing that.
Now, from John Durham's perspective as a strategic prosecutor and as a methodical prosecutor that he has been, he may have already charged that conspiracy and it's under seal.
Or he may be working on charging that conspiracy and he doesn't need it, right?
As a prosecutor, you want to use every piece of evidence you need to sustain a conviction and no more.
So you always add some things that you know might get uh tossed out by the judge based on his judicial rulings.
And that's why I just don't think this is of that big of a consequence.
What I want to highlight for audience.
Wait, wait, wait.
So that you're you're basically saying this might even be a strategic move on the side of Durham to basically not win everything.
Yeah, because he you don't know the cards he's holding.
You don't know the defendants he has in the queue as as I've predicted that he's going to charge more people.
You know, it's clear he's laid out in his pleadings to date the joint venture conspiracy involving all the folks of the Rodney Joffreys of the world, the Sussman's the Elias', the Sullivan's Podestas MOOCs, the Fusion GPS and Peter Fritz and Glenn Simpson and all these characters.
He's pled that in federal court.
The world has seen it.
But what he hasn't said is, who else am I charging?
But he has said, Judge, and this is what the judge noted in his ruling.
He said, You, John Durham have told me that some of these folks are targets, continued targets of your investigation.
If that's the case and you want to charge them, then I'll let all this information in.
And John Durham may just be at a point where he's saying, I've got enough, I've got my case against Sussman.
Strategically as a prosecutor, do you want that first?
This would be a second conviction, reminding our audience.
He convicted the FBI for lying to the federal court in the Kleinsmith case.
Now, if he gets the lawyer for the DNC at the epicenter of this joint venture conspiracy convicted in trial without having to use all his information and evidence, he's winning because then he goes beyond that and says, now I'm charging individuals two, three, and four with this joint venture conspiracy, and for the first time I'm unveiling this information in a federal indictment or a federal pleading.
And so we used to do that all the time when we had other co-conspirators we wanted to charge later.
You don't want to show your hand, and you don't need to show your hand as a federal prosecutor up front.
So that's my take on it.
There's a good chance I'm wrong, but maybe I'm right.
Incredible.
Well, and there was also a small development in the Danchenko case, because you know, it's easy to forget that there's a whole nother case going on, right?
Yeah, you're right.
And I'm glad we remind our audience there's an entire other indictment by John Durham that really hasn't been talked about in two, three months, maybe.
There's a filing in that case, um, which basically said that John Durham is continuing to provide volumes of discovery to the defense, which is good for both due process and the defendant's right, but it also shows that John Durham is methodically moving through it.
But what he did say to the judge was I may need a little more time in that case because my small team of prosecutors investigators is so busy doing other stuff, i.e.
the Sussman prosecution starting next week, hopefully, that he may need a little more time.
But we'll get into the Danchenko case once we wrap up uh the Sussman case here.
So Cash, I think it's time for our shout-out.
And as you mentioned at the beginning, a lot of people have been asking, how do I get my Cash Patel signed classic Epoch Times Spy Gate poster.
So for the shout out, Jan, we have Rod and Sydney Levitt.
Thanks so much for your kind words to both Jan and myself, which we read every week.
Thank you to the audience for all your postings, including a lot of commentary about the Epoch Time Spy Gate poster, which I am going to sign and which we are going to provide our audience an opportunity to get.
And if you go to this link and click on this website, you can see how you can obtain your very own copy of what I have always called the absolute best Russia Gate Infograph ever created on planet Earth.
And as a special offering, I'm gonna sign it personally, and I hope you and the rest of our audience hangs it up on their wall in their houses to follow along what truth and tradition actually mean.
So if you're not yet a subscriber to the Epoch Times, you can actually get a $99 one-year digital subscription with the cash signed Epoch Times SpyGate poster included for $99 at epochtv.com slash cash.
Epoch TV.com slash cash.
And if you're already a subscriber, go to EpochShop.com and we've got a special offer for you there as well.
Hey everyone, I've got some exciting news to share for American Thought Leaders and Cash's Corner.
We're actually going to be expanding our production team and hiring an associate producer.
You can actually see the job description at ept.ms slash associate producer.
That's all one word.
If you know anyone who might be interested in this job who has the qualifications, or you yourself might be interested, we'd love to hear from you.
