Kash’s Corner: Sussmann Case Exposed Sweeping Evidence of Abuse; Durham Should Bring Future Cases Outside of DC
The acquittal of ex-Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was “a straight-up case of jury nullification … which basically says we don’t care what the facts are, we’re going to find you not guilty anyway,” argues Kash Patel. The jury’s short deliberation time means “they didn’t really look at the evidence.”For future cases, Patel argues that special counsel John Durham should try to bring them outside of Washington. There are “creative ways to have lawful jurisdiction if you want to do it,” he says.What’s next for John Durham? Will tech executive Rodney Joffe be indicted next?Evidence has also emerged that Rodney Joffe had circumvented his FBI handler, that the FBI had set up and maintained a secure vault at the Perkins Coie office, and that Michael Sussmann had a badge giving him access to FBI headquarters. What’s really going on?We discuss all this and more in this episode of Kash’s Corner.Follow EpochTV on social media:Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVusRumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTVTruth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@EpochTVGettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtvFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVusGab: https://gab.com/EpochTVTelegram: https://t.me/EpochTV
So Cash, I'm really thrilled to have you here today.
I think for the first time on the New York American thought leaders set.
In fact, I'm kind of shocked that I haven't had you here.
It was always in other places when we interviewed, but finally we're here.
Finally made it.
I'm a little offended.
And I only got here now.
The only kind of problem that I have today is just I'm I'm kind of honestly a bit stunned at this verdict in the Sussman trial.
I mean, I was expecting it would be either like a hung jury or a guilty verdict or something like this, but it it's it seems like it just went, you know, kind of almost instantly, not guilty, not lying.
I mean, it seemed like a pretty clear cut case, don't you think?
Yeah, I mean, for a guy who, you know, tried 60 criminal trials, jury trials to verdict.
Um, you know, when a jury goes back and deliberates for about an hour, that means they only thought about the case for about five minutes because they spent the other time sorting through paperwork, picking up four person, ordering food, and then they no, seriously, and this jury looked at this case for less than an hour.
That means they had their minds made up on Friday when both sides closed, and they didn't really look at the evidence.
So that happens in some jury cases, but I I'm with you.
You know, I was probably the last man standing.
I was probably the last cheerleader that the overall DOJ and FBI had.
And you're talking to the guy who exposed their criminality and corruption in Russia Gate and the FISA abuse process and the Christopher Steel dossier and the Alpha Bank server.
And I was still saying, you know, this is not a knock on John Durham, but it's a knock on how people, or it's a justification on why people's faith in the FBI and DOJ is completely destroyed.
And mine basically is too.
But there was a couple of things I think that maybe uh they could have done differently.
I mean, it's like Monday morning quarterbacking, so it's very hard to judge that.
But as I highlighted when we first started, a jury that's only considered this case for less than an hour wasn't going to consider anything else anyway.
They had their minds made up.
They were shown to be political.
They sh showed their stripes when they didn't abide by their oaths and violated the facts and the law that was presented to them.
This was a straight up case of jury nullification, which is illegal, but it's the jury's right to make that verdict and make that decision because they never have to explain themselves as to why they got there.
And all the folks that were saying DC juries are tainted and DC juries are very problematic.
Well, this case will stand for a long time to prove that very point because this wasn't, as we always said, a he said she said.
It was a document case.
It was the defendant's words under oath, showing him to have lied to the FBI.
That was the case.
The judge's rulings didn't help where he precluded Michael Sussman's text messages from coming in and from the jury to see the contradiction that he made um to the FBI and then to his buddy James Baker by text messages.
For whatever reason, this judge also made some egregious mistakes on evidentiary matters that uh that I thought could be overcome.
I really maybe I was hopeful, maybe I was naive, but I thought maybe even one person on this jury uh would uh would rise to the challenge and and they just all failed.
Well, and there's also this issue.
There were a number of Clinton donors on the jury, and there's one I think that had a daughter that it was I think on the crew team with Sussman's daughter.
I I'm not sure if I have that entirely exactly right.
You know, picking a jury in DC is always problematic if you're bringing a case that has any sort of political leaning.
This case is entirely politics.
It was Camp Clinton and their army of lawyers who were charged, this one person, Michael Sussman, the head charged with lying to federal authorities on behalf of a political campaign that had spent millions, tens of millions of dollars conjuring up two totally fraudulent lines of investigative efforts for the FBI, the steel dossier and the Alpha Bank server.
And we've been over that in depth.
And that's been proven.
Bottom line, that that has been proven throughout my our investigation, the IG, John Durham, and everything else.
I do think uh there's still a lot of value that came out of this case, a lot of information, but we'll get to that.
But yeah, having, I think it was actually three members that donated to Hillary Clinton, one Member donated to AOC.
And then there was also, yes, the uh a daughter of one of the jurors was on the same crew team as Sussman's daughter.
So when anyone looks at that, it's like, how do you, how do you get a fair shot?
And what the defense in Clinton World and the mainstream media is right now saying is, well, they were giving an instruction that said, you have to follow the law and the facts.
And I, as I've said before on the show, that's an easy instruction to give.
And clearly this jury failed to follow it.
And any jury that does a jury nullification, which basically says we don't care what the facts are, we're just gonna find you not guilty anyway.
That's what they do.
Yeah, and I wanted to get you just to clarify, because that that's a new term for many people, like jury nullification.
That just means that a jury ignores the facts, or what does it mean?
It means well, so first of all, it's it's it's illegal for the defense to argue for jury nullification.
But what you're just asking basically for is the jury to give him, give my client a pass, even though he committed this crime, but give him a pass because you feel bad for him, or give him a pass because he was trying to achieve a greater good.
You know, if the perfect example is, you know, in law school, you'd always get this a mother who is poor and has no money, steals a loaf of bread to feed her kid.
It's a crime, right?
At the end of the day.
Now you go before a jury to try that case and you prove that she stole the bread and has no money and it wasn't an illegal activity.
The jury might come back and say, well, she did it to feed her kid, jury nullification.
Now you can't argue that as a defendant, but you sort of portray it.
And this is what the defense did in this case.
They portrayed the government as the corrupt evil guys, which is ironic for Hillary Clinton world to do that.
And then they said, Well, our guy Michael Sussman, you know, did all these great things.
Um, the FBI set him up.
And don't listen to the plain testimony of the defendant, his sworn statements, his own words, ignore that too.
Uh and and ignore the the testimony of the people that he made those statements, some of those statements to ignore that and all the documentation that John Durham put into evidence.
And they layered it on.
They had help from this judge, who also, by the way, you know, we've talked about it, that he had a possible conflict of interest being married to the lawyer for Lisa Page.
Now, we've said on the past, and I still stand by that statement that John Durham made a decision as a prosecutor to either not go for recusal for specific reasons.
I don't know the reason, strategy, or otherwise, but I know it's impossible to believe John Durham did not know that.
But those things, when they add up in the public sphere, people are like, well, why would we want to go to DC to get a fair trial for anyone ever again?
And now they're rightly thinking that.
Well, so here's the interesting thing.
You just mentioned, right, the defenses case was basically that the it's the government that sort of, you know, took advantage of of the of the lawyer, so to speak.
And that, but so in the process, and you've alluded to this as well, a lot was actually exposed.
A lot was put into the public sphere that simply wasn't known, right?
And I mean, I I feel I felt a little bit terrible, frankly, with some of the evidence, seeing like just thinking to myself, my goodness, what has happened to the FBI, FBI lying to itself, for example.
That was one of the things that depends on the.
No, that was a huge thing.
I mean, me, a former terrorism prosecutor, a guy that worked hand in hand with the FBI across the country and around the world, uh, putting on uh terrorism cases and prosecutions.
How can it be that the central FBI case agent, not just for the Russia Gate investigation, but also for the Clinton email server investigation, testifies in federal court in the suspend case and says, I am currently under FBI investigation for lying and withholding uh excavatory evidence.
I mean, how can you have any faith in the FBI?
And how can you have any faith in its leadership, you know, under Chris Ray, who refuses to answer congressional questions about these matters, who refuses to actually clean up the FBI, but just puts out empty epithets after another saying we will make sure the FBI is better.
The FBI is not better.
Jan Alpa actually argued the FBI is worse now than it was when they had Comey running the Russia Gate and Clinton investigation along with Andy McCabe and Peter Strack and Bill Priestamp, who, by the way, Bill Prestap came into court and didn't do anyone any favors.
He knows what happens, and he got away with the sham that he was able to say, Oh, I don't really know.
I don't really remember, you know, to John Durham's team.
And it's, and I'm, you know, he was lying.
That's my firm belief.
He was completely lying.
I know him.
I've interrogated him.
I've seen his work.
That man doesn't forget anything.
It's fully documented.
He could have looked at all his notes and remembered he chose not to because he didn't want his investigation that he land that he ran with Peter Strack, that is the Clinton email investigation and the Russell Gate investigation to be tainted in any way.
And now they're going to go out on a media parade and say we were right the entire time, which is another massive disinformation campaign.
But I think there has been some course correction as you alluded to by a lot in the media just based on some of the information that came out.
So that was one piece.
I mean, we learned a lot about just kind of really problematic stuff inside the FBI through this, through this trial.
The other thing, and Margaret Cleveland had this, you know, highly elucidating article in in the Federalist where she basically talks about how, yes, that Sussman was found not guilty, but actually the corporate media have been proven guilty effectively through a lot.
And I think she's talking about a lot of these emails, for example, that came out about how, you know, uh uh fusion worked with the journalists and so forth.
Yeah.
And what Marg was saying uh was basically what we've been saying, Devin and I have been saying for maybe five years now, that the media was not duped, that the media was in on it intentionally, that the media was connected directly to the corrupt actors at the FBI that we've talked about, Andy McKay, Peter Strack, Lisa Page, Bill Priest and company, and this this guy, Heidi at the FBI too, that that special agent.
But they were also connected to the lawyers in Clinton World.
And we found out through the Sussman case that there were meetings with Fusion GPS, which is, for those of you who've never heard them on our show, and I don't think there is anyone that is, but just in case, Fusion GPS is basically the media quarterback corporation for the Hillary Clinton campaign for RussiaGate and the Alpha Bank server and the Clinton email scandal.
And they basically are the uh sync point between the campaign, the media, and the bureau.
And they got paid millions of dollars to do it to go in and help them seed this information into the FBI and then seed it back out simultaneously to the media.
And that's what you're talking about today, because all of that came out in the Sussman case.
All of those connections, all of those links, all of those emails, not people saying, oh, I heard about it or I think I saw something.
The individuals we just named, it's their own emails, it's their own documentation, it's their own work product.
It's the FBI's own notes and own reports that show this has been going on for years, and there's a money trail that follows it that John Durham entered into evidence showing that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the entire thing through Perkins-Cooey and Fusion GPS.
The other questions or the other stunning thing that came out, I think is who exactly is on the FBI payroll during this entire time?
Who are their sources?
Who are their confidential informants?
We know how bad it was when Christopher Steele was identified as a source who lied to the FBI, then broke his contract, leaked to the media and was fired and still used by the FBI anyway.
Now we learned about Rodney Joffey and who's next.
It just doesn't seem to end.
Well, and of course, you know, the the really big thing I think was that the testimony of MOOC, which was essentially that uh Hillary Clinton just approved the the Alpha Bank operation for lack of a better term.
Yeah, well, we'd been saying that, and I think Devin and I said that we've proven this because you can't be a candidate for president of the United States, the presumptive president back in 2016, and spend 50 to 100 million dollars of campaign finance dollars on opposition research, which is illegal, and they got caught by the FEC and they basically agreed to it and paid the fine anyway, just to get this thing buried, but we're not gonna stop talking about it.
You can't, as the head, we've said this, credibly say, I have no idea what's going on.
And your campaign managers for years have said we have nothing to do with the Alpha Bank server, yet they have now been shown through this case again, that not just Robbie Mook, but Jake Sullivan and her have known the entire time.
Not only was their firm that was their campaign billed by Perkins Coe and Michael Sussman's further work, the campaign manager himself, Robbie Mook said she knew about it, she agreed with it, and she sent us out to the media with that information they knew to be false.
That is probably the biggest statement that'll stand out apart from you know, sort of the Michael Sussman part of this case.
And Robbie Mook's testimony was as a defense witness, so supposedly he was there to help Sussman, but that one line or two lines are are gonna resonate for years to come when it comes to Hillary Clinton and whether or not she was a part of this.
She engineered it pursuant to that testimony.
And if I could just circle back real quick to Rodney Jaffe, I agree with you that I think from a macro perspective, that statement that Robbie Mook put out, highlighting Hillary quarterback, the whole thing, is probably the biggest thing to come out.
But for me, as a former federal prosecutor brought these cases and as a public defender who defended against them, the source work is always the most important because you want to get the source, the FBI sources, the confidential human sources, the CHS's that we call them.
You want to make sure they did the right work and that they weren't just paid to do it and they were paid to lie, or they didn't violate the law or they didn't leak to the media.
We caught Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS doing that entire charade or unlawful activity through Bruce Orr and DOJ already one time.
So for me now, the lead Russia Gate investigator here, for the first time during the Susman case that Rodney Joffee, the tech executive, who, as I've called the Christopher Steele of the Alpha Bank narrative, was also an FBI source for something like a decade.
What is the terms of that?
Where's the document showing how much he got paid?
What was his contractual responsibilities?
How did he, an individual who had said he was basically uh maneuvering for a high-level position in the Clinton administration during the election campaign?
How is he allowed to work on this investigation with the FBI where he created the fraudulent intel uh about the Alpha Bank connection of Trump Tower?
What was the FBI doing?
They're supposed to constantly vet sources.
They my belief is what we proved happened with Christopher Steele is going to happen, the world's gonna come to know about Rodney Jaffe.
The FBI knew Christopher Steele was lying.
I believe the FBI knew Rodney Joffey was lying.
He was on the take for Hillary Clinton and that he was getting paid millions of dollars.
Why didn't the FBI leadership shut him down earlier?
And why did they refer him for criminal prosecution?
And it's the same answer that they didn't shut down Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS.
Because the corruption at the FBI from Comey McCabe, Strock, Page, and Bill Priesta, they wanted to take down then candidate Trump and ultimately President Trump.
And they put politics above what the law and the facts demanded.
And to me, that's the biggest thing.
And that's why I also believe Rodney Joffey is going to be probably the next guy that gets indicted by John Durham.
He pretty much said so in his pleadings that he's a target.
He was a target, he continues to be a target.
And that's why Jan, a lot of our audience is probably wondering, why didn't this Rodney Joffee tech executive guy testify in the case for Susman or the defense?
It's because he pled the fifth.
He told the court, you can call me as a witness, but I'm gonna plead my Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
So when any witness does that, this isn't TV.
You don't get to put him on the stand just to hear it.
He notified the court and the parties, and that's why he was never called.
Well, and there's also this element, and maybe you can just comment on this, but what the day that we were actually in court together, um, you know, there was this testimony that he actually circumvented his handler, right?
And passing information to the FBI.
So that that could actually be part of the case against him, possibly, right?
I mean, the fact that there's an FBI agent out there, now more than one, because we know the FBI circumvented uh how Christopher Steele was handled by hiring basically the number five attorney at the Department of Justice in Bruce Orr to serve as a cutout after they fired Steele just so they could keep collecting the intel.
I mean, it's you know, we laugh at it now, but it's you know, you want to talk about what the heck the FBI was doing back then, but apparently they were doing it simultaneously with Rodney Joffey.
The FBI agent testified under oath that he knew Rodney Jaffe had a handler.
Every FBI agent knows that about any source.
There's a handler, there's someone responsible for him.
And you, as another FBI agent, if you come across that person, you never violate the rules that the FBI runs on that you don't tell the handler, the source handler.
This guy, he even admitted this special agent, Grasso admitted on the witness stand that he considered the source a friend.
What kind of world is this?
FBI agents and sources aren't friends.
You have a monetary relationship where you're benefiting, supposedly protecting and safeguarding America's national security interests and preventing against crime, but apparently this FBI agent was Buddy Buddies with this source, who was committing a crime himself.
What else happened that we don't know about that these individuals at the FBI in their leadership positions, A, hid from Congress.
Remember, we talked about this before.
Why didn't I, as a chief investigator for Russian gate with Chairman Nunes, who issued 17 subpoenas to amongst others, the FBI and DOJ get provided this information.
We asked for all of it.
They told us none of it.
What we were doing was trying to shine accountability by trying to expose the facts.
And they have slowly come out in this Michael Sussman with stunning regard.
And I think the media has even been forced uh those that didn't cover it before to at least cover it in some way.
So it's a little bit of a silver lining if you want to call it that.
It's not the accountability everybody was looking for.
But even I woke up today and said, look, you can't stop.
You, you know, if you're in this business or if you're in this industry or if you want to see our agencies and departments restored to their years before credibility, then you have to keep fighting for this.
And I think there was a few people at Congress that made some fun moves uh this week on this entire process.
Okay, so now I have a whole bunch of things.
You just you just brought one another thing up, which is just this these questions about why did Mr. Sussman have, you know, these FBI passes, for example, right?
This isn't it's just a curiosity, right?
I I remember it came up, someone flagged it, and now there's actually been questions asked about it.
Yeah, I think what you're referring to is both in uh you know in social media and just in the media in in general, I think is my my understanding is it's pursuant to a congressional inquiry of red but led by um Congressman Jim Jordan, Congressman Matt Gates.
Uh, but I could be wrong.
But basically what happens is when you work in a secure building, such as the FBI, you have secure credentials that allow you access to classified areas and allow you access just to get in and out of the building.
I know I've had all of these badges.
Every building has a different badge essentially.
And it is, and rightfully so, a very difficult process to obtaining that badge because you don't want anyone walking in and out of there.
You certainly don't want a lawyer for a political campaign to have access to the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
But what we're learning now is somehow Michael Sussman, while funneling this information about Christopher Steele and the dossier on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Alpha Bank server uh nonsense and tech executive Rodney Joffee to the FBI to the CIA had an access badge to the FBI.
And Christopher Ray, the current FBI director, would not answer a question about it from one of the Republican members of Congress this past week when he was asked about it under oath.
That to me is stunning.
A why you wouldn't answer.
It doesn't surprise me, because Christopher Ray has never complied with actual accountability and actual oversight from Congress, whether it's documents and whatnot.
And so him providing a non-answer is not surprising.
It's just hurtful to the reputation of the FBI.
But more importantly, is the why.
Why is this guy who's on trial at this point, he was still on trial, um, an indicted individual.
Why was he given access in the past to walk in and out of the FBI's Esau fit?
I think that's a whole nother investigation when happened.
But so it's not common practice.
I mean, this is the thing, because sometimes, because sometimes people will yell and scream about things and you you learn, well, actually, this is just kind of normal, right?
For people to have, right?
But that's you're saying that's not the case here.
To get in and out of an FBI building, you need to be an FBI agent, a full-time FBI employee or an FBI contractor or a lawyer at the Department of Justice.
That's basically how you get in and out of there.
Now there's guests that can come in and out who are assisting on cases and things like that, but you do those off as one off.
You walk down, you sign them in, they submit their driver's license, they sign the logbook, you've already screened them, and then they go through the metal detectors and then they're allowed in.
The badge allows you to circumvent that entire process and walk in and out of there with reckless abandon without announcing to anyone you're even coming.
That's apparently what Michael Sussman had.
Why?
Why was he given that kind of access?
Who else was a source?
It's just stunning to me that they allowed this.
Well, it's I mean, it's possible he has some other relationship with the FBI that that isn't disclosed, right?
That'll that allowed for that.
Maybe he did, maybe a client did, but it's it's about time we figured out what it was.
Did John Durham know of this information?
I don't know.
Um, you know, it seems to me that this information came from a whistleblower over to over in Congress, which is why which spurned these members of Congress to act, both in the letter to the director and in certain questionings to to Chris Ray, but there's just so much more we need to find out there.
And there's also this element of uh uh basically the FBI having office space at Perkins CUI.
Yeah, I mean, I mean, just when I thought you couldn't make it make up any more fiction that could be crazier from the truth, we just talked about the badge thing.
Now you're telling me a former Intel guy, a former guy who was a civilian of the military and also a DOJ prosecutor who worked in these things that we call skiffs, secure compartmented information facility.
It's just fancy for think of a bank vault where you keep all your classified information and no one's allowed in there with their cell phones, their Fitbits, their fancy watches, because they don't want the information to leak out and things like that.
And we don't want our enemies to get it, rightfully so.
These skiffs, these vaults are very expensive to build and maintain.
But it's now been reported that the Perkins Cooey law firm had such a secure space set up by the FBI in their offices.
Now, maybe, maybe there's a reason that that occurred.
But in my entire tenure of 16 years of government service, I have never heard of a secure compartment information facility being housed at the headquarters of a law firm that represented the Democratic National Party.
I mean, just think of it this way.
What would the mainstream media be doing right now if the number one law firm for Donald Trump had a skiff built by the FBI in its conference room?
There would be more outrage than there is time in the week to cover.
And again, I don't maybe there's a reason for it.
But the fact that it also happened at Michael Sussman's law firm, who is an indicted individual at the time and who was under investigation for years by John Durham and who had access to the FBI badge access, now his law firm has some sort of secure facility for FBI agents to work there and for them to work with whom?
What else is going on here?
Who else does that law firm represent?
Does it have to do with anything with Rodney Joffy?
But the other thing is that whether all of that even plays out to be credible from their perspective, no amount of law enforcement work should be going on outside of HBIF quarters or secure space in government offices and government buildings.
I don't know what the reasoning is here, but I can't think of one that would justify this sort of conduct.
A lot of big questions to be asked, right?
Yeah.
And the the one thing that keeps I keep thinking about right now, right, is there is this other indictment, of course.
We're expecting, based on all this information that was kind of unearthed through this trial that there will be more indictments.
I certainly expect it, I know you do, um, and and and many other who are watching this closely do.
Um the question is, is it even possible, right?
Given the types of relationships which just ha happen to happen, uh appear on juries, for example, in DC, a small town, I guess, right?
Uh, is it even possible to try one of these trials in DC in a way that wouldn't, you know, become politicized somehow?
Well, what I said publicly just today, um, and that I'll repeat here on the show is that don't bring them in DC.
You know, this gets into the legal gymnastics of it all, but there's this thing called, you know, if a crime occurs federally involving the FBI headquarters or what have you, there's original jurisdiction thing.
There's a thing called original jurisdiction in that the case has to be brought in DC.
But it doesn't have to be.
Federal courts, you you you have jurisdiction throughout the country, depending on where the defendant lived, where the conspiracy occurred, where a piece of the crime occurred, um, or where there was cons conspirators that were working on this effort together.
And so in a case like Michael Sussman, who loaded up information on a thumb drive, that thumb drive is not made in America.
It travels along interstate lines of commerce, which is how you bring a federal case.
That's the distinction between state court and federal court.
You have to have some sort of interstate nexus or international nexus to bring a case in federal court or one that affects a federal officer directly, i.e.
a murder against an FBI agent.
But that's why you see murders against cops brought in state court.
Bank robberies are always brought in federal court because they involve the U.S. currency, which passes state lines and banks utilize the national banking system.
So that's why they're brought in federal court.
So, like like that, the thumb drive, it was transported here from somewhere.
Some part of this conspiracy or this criminal conduct that I still believe Michael Sussman committed, didn't all happen in Washington, D.C. They pick up phones, they talk to people on a phone call.
If you're in DC and the cases and the other individuals in Texas, well, you can bring that case in Texas.
And so the DOJ just, you know, this is where it gets overly political, and this is why people lose faith in it.
You don't have to bring them there.
I know, because I tried those cases.
You can put them elsewhere.
There's many options for venue, and a lot of federal prosecutors will disagree with you.
And it's because they didn't want to do it.
They didn't want to, you know, quote unquote go against the head shed at DOJ to say, well, we usually bring these cases in Washington, but on this instance, we now know why we don't, especially when they're overly political.
Now, thankfully, this next Danchenko prosecution is out in Virginia.
It's better to be out in Virginia with the jury pool that's out there than the one in DC.
And we saw how the jury pool here can be tainted.
And we also saw how uh a judge in Washington, D.C. uh can have the appearance of impropriety because of his relationship with his wife and the community and basically everyone knowing everyone, because that's why it's called the swamp, and that's why everyone hates it.
So bring it outside.
And that's what I, you know, I don't talk to John Durham, but I publicly said that today.
Bring your future cases, your conspiracy cases, your cases against Joffee.
There's so many available avenues for jurisdiction.
Try them outside.
Try them west of the Mississippi.
It doesn't matter.
There's creative ways to have lawful jurisdiction if you want to do it.
And I don't know that this attorney general will allow John Durham to do it.
That may be the only point where the AG comes in and says, you can bring that case, but you just can't bring it there.
You gotta bring it in DC.
But now we know why.
Now, so one last question with respect to the trial.
I'm kind of fascinated by Durham's MO here, right?
Basically, the defense provided an opening for him to present all this information, right?
To put all this information into the case, which is, you know, I think just about everybody is arguing.
It's it's fantastic that it's out there because it helps kind of shine a light into a place that the where there was no light yet.
Um in this upcoming Danchenko case or possibly other cases where there's enlightenments, will he be restricted from doing something like this, or can he continue with this MO?
So yes, he can.
Uh but here's what I remind people.
He's the only prosecutor that knows it all.
When I was a prosecutor and I tried high profile cases, people would always question, why did you do this?
Why did you let that draw on?
Why did you file this motion?
Why did you say this?
Generally, you have a game plan.
And if you have a game plan that connects to other cases, other prosecutions, like we did a lot of times when we were doing work, we played certain cards in certain cases and left the others to be played later.
And we had an overall strategic approach to our entire prosecution theme.
And, you know, the way John Durham has carried himself leads me to believe he's done exactly that.
So he might come out in the future and say, I've got more pleadings and I'm going to get this information out.
Or what I think actually he did was use this case as a vehicle to get that information out.
And he got a ton of information out, as you said.
So now he doesn't have to relitigate it or go through the hoops again.
He's like, well, all of this stuff is out.
Now what I need to do is if I have more targets that I can indict, now I just need to start indicing him because then the media on its own will start connecting the dots.
Well, we heard this from the FBI agent in the suspend case.
We heard this from Suspin's transcript himself.
We heard this from Robbie Mook.
We heard this from the corrupt FBI guys.
We heard this from all the recordings and documents that John Durham submitted in the Suspect case, in the Kleinsmith case, in the Denchenko case.
So all of this stuff's out there, and it's unlikely he just sort of threw everything against the wall and said, okay, maybe I'll use something down the road.
That's not how you run federal prosecutions.
I just don't think that's how John Durham is running, running his.
Well, and then there's this, and we talked about this brief a little bit earlier.
There's this whole element of just kind of this legacy media being exposed for working really, really tightly with Oppo, you know, with APA research being kind of cajoled into uh uh, you know, publishing and some cases, you know, kind of in dramatic fashion, if I recall.
And so, you know, I wanted to kind of move into the media side a little bit, and not so much on this case, but one of the things that I noticed was that um there's basically been a lawsuit launched by the guy who held the Hunter Biden laptop, uh, Mikaizik.
I think it's against Politico CNN, Adam Schiff, actually, curiously.
So Daily Beast is basically, you know, changing their articles and apologizing for saying that it was stolen.
They just go with with apparently no evidence where saying that it was stolen.
Yeah.
And so I think what you're saying try what you're seeing, Jan, is the transition of, at least in small steps, the um legacy media as you call it, you're nicer to them than I uh than I will be, um, who have carried the water for political parties in the past, i.e.
on Russia Gate, on Hillary Gate, on the impeachment fiasco on Hunter Biden's laptop issues on everything, knowingly and intentionally lying about people, about the subject, about the content of what actually happened, now coming full circle, because they're doing what we've been talking about needed to be done, which is taking on the fake news media.
When you've been defamed, you have to go out there and you have to show that they wronged you.
They lied about you.
And McIsac is doing just that with the laptop.
What he's saying, and I think rightfully so is now the whole world knows he didn't illegally retrieve that laptop.
It was given to him by Hunter Biden himself.
And then McKaisett lawfully gave it to the FBI who were conducting a criminal investigation.
He did nothing wrong.
It's just that it was Hunter Biden's laptop that caused the world to turn on his head because it happened to be during an election cycle and they lambasted him and they defamed him, I believe and that's why the Daily Beast, who I think is one of the worst publications literally on planet Earth, mind you, these are the same people that called me a genocidal dictator when I was running the Russian investigation for them to come out and basically say we got it wrong.
That's pretty powerful.
Hopefully this is a pivotal moment where others see, hang on a second, if we can get Daily Beast and we can get politico and we can get CNN and we can get Adam Schiff, then maybe we'll have some truth restored to journalism.
I'm I don't have much hope for it, but maybe.
Well and it just the the whole CNN Adam Schiff so I think he's kind of jointly suing the uh we CNN reported on the actual you know how the laptop was actually obtained per McIsaac himself and then in a subsequent episode after that had Adam Schiff on the show who said that the as something like the laptop came from Russia or the laptop is connected with Russia.
So I mean I I had forgotten about this, but you you can't write this stuff.
No, and Adam Schiff's the single biggest purveyor of disinformation and hot garbage on planet earth.
He did the same thing with Russia Gate he held up the steel dossier and said this is true and accurate information when he knew it was bogus and false.
Then he said the FBI couldn't be corrupt and didn't lie when he knew they had gone to the federal court and lied about the information they got from the bogus dossier.
And you know he did the same thing in the Trump impeachment fiasco and now he's doing it again with the Hunter Biden laptop thing.
He's the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
He is one of the like 15 people in America who have access to the most sensitive intelligence that we produce or collect as a country.
And so he intentionally decided to ignore the intelligence as I've seen him do and as he's done here in this case and now he's been caught the difference for members of Congress and this is what I've I've tried to educate people on at fightwithcash.com is which is all about bringing defamation lawsuits on behalf of Americans who've been defamed but can't afford it is everybody's like why don't you sue you know every member of Congress.
Well the speech and debate clause prevents it.
What it allows for in court is if you are a member of Congress you can basically say anything you want defamatory lies or otherwise you can even go out and disclose classified information and the speech into pays clause prevents your prosecution or your civil um liability in federal and state court uh based on uh anything you might say.
So Adam Schiff knows that and he basically that's what makes him the biggest menace in both media and Congress because he knows he can skip the law and he's doing so in this case.
I'm glad they're suing him the chances of beating of making him pay up are are are little but CNN politico and these other folks that you're naming they've got problems because they actually defamed him and the only reason the Daily Beast is coming forth and issuing this apology is because they want to avoid being slumped into that lawsuit.
And so it's going to be very interesting to watch how how this one proceeds for McIsac.
And so what's this I hear about uh the advertising Google advertising with your book uh basically being shut down what happened yeah so along the same vein right the media is so we've shown it to be corrupt we We don't just say it, you know, on our show and your show and Epoch Times overall.
We put facts to our words and then put out a story.
McKizac was one instance.
My book, The Plot Against the King, which is the Russia Gate book for children about what happened in the last five years to our country, became a bestseller.
And then just this week, Google informed Brave Books Publishing, the publishing house that made this wonderful book, that we are shutting down not just the plot against the King, but every children's book they've ever put out.
Their whole advertising campaign has been shut down.
And this is a small book publisher who teaches great stories to children about the First Amendment, about freedom of speech, about the civil war, about things you want kids learning about in a fun way without making it political, just like we did in the plot against the king.
But because they're big tech and because they want to suppress the truth like they've done from RussiaGate on.
Google comes in and says, we're gonna we're gonna shut down any efforts that you have to publicize the plot against the king without any justification whatsoever, except to say basically the book's getting too much attention, so we don't want it to get any more you're off our platform.
Putting my book aside, this entire company, Brave Books, who puts out these wonderful children's books, has been scuttled in an essence.
You know, we're gonna take it head on uh because you know, I don't take a knee for this stuff.
And we will come out on top, and eventually we will be sitting here in a little while in a future episode talking about the time that Google um was shown to have committed a basically unlawful or unethical activity and shut us down because it was political and because not because they said we were actually lying.
So I look forward to that day.
And I'll be there to say I told you so.
So Cash, I think it's time for our shout out.
Well, we do have a shout out, as always this week, but I want to tell our audience that we have a very special announcement from my friend Jan McKellick on an amazing movie that they're putting out.
So please stay tuned.
But this week's shout-out goes to William Spielberger.
Thanks so much for your wonderful and kind comments on our board at Epoch TV.
Thanks to everyone that always posts there every week.
We appreciate you watching last week's live feed, and we promise it's not the last one.
Many more to come.
Cash, thanks for uh shouting out the film.
So, and I'll I'll I'll talk to the camera as well.
You know, basically, my wife Cindy and I, we put our hearts and souls into making a film called Finding Manny.
It's about her Holocaust survivor father and this amazing trip of the family discovering basically what an incredible man he was and how he kept his optimism and his, you know, basically forward-looking attitude throughout basically the worst that humanity has to offer or had to offer.
And so we're actually premiering this film on Epoch TV.
Uh, it's the US distribution across basically all our platforms.
Uh, 7:30 p.m. Eastern on Epoch TV on Saturday.
I think I looked for many, many years.
I tried everywhere.
I felt that it was about time.
Manny talked about it.
Because for the longest time, he didn't.
You know, after I kind of pried it out of him, why do I want to go back to the scene, you know, the horror?
Why why do I want to go back to that?
immediately after the war most people just wanted to move on And in a certain way, I felt that he was special because of what he had gone through.
I never forget what happened, but I'm um prepared to live on.
