Kash Patel on Jan. 6 Timeline: Trump Authorized 20,000 National Guard Two Days Before
Two days before the Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021, then-President Donald Trump personally authorized the use of up to 20,000 National Guardsmen to support local law enforcement if requested. But no request, as required by law, came from the Capitol police or from Mayor Muriel Bowser, says Kash Patel, who was serving as chief of staff at the Department of Defense at the time.What really happened in the days leading up to Jan. 6?In the Season 4 finale of Kash’s Corner, we’ll dive into the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, issues of censorship and national security, and what’s next in the Durham investigation. 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
For those of you watching live stream, but not in this amazing room, that was our packed house audience.
We're doing the first ever live recording.
So we want to welcome you to Cash's Corner Live from Orange County, California.
And I got to tell you, this is the best crowd I've been in front of in a long time.
Jan, what do we have in store?
We're going to have to do this more often.
We just had the January 6th Committee basically start its public work, start its, you know, what looks like a very, very finely produced production on primetime television.
You were actually behind the scenes before January 6th.
You know what went down.
There's been some really interesting reporting on this, and it seems to be very different from what we're hearing from the January 6th committee.
So why don't we start there?
Yeah, I think it's going to be a topic that people are going to want to talk about for some time.
But I was chief of staff of the Department of Defense.
I was leading the DOD mission for the Secretary and the President.
3 million people, $750 billion in assets under management, and a $2 trillion overall budget.
So despite the number one mission of the Department of Defense is the national security.
It's a no-fail mission, as we call it.
But we do have the National Guard, as many people in America are familiar with, and we support our law enforcement partners around the country routinely, be it from the Super Bowl or parades or what have you.
Law enforcement just isn't equipped to handle basic security, and that's where we come in.
And on January 6th, I think we've put out a lot of information, the DOD timeline that we've put out, the information that many journalists have put out over the last couple of months to counteract the narrative, the false narrative that the January 6th Committee is putting out.
And so for us, we don't get involved in the election stuff at DOD.
We don't get involved in the voter integrity issue.
We get involved in securing federal buildings and American citizens and the members of Congress.
So we were thinking ahead of time at the end of December and into early January, you know, there was public reporting that there was going to be a lot of people in and around Washington, D.C. and other cities.
So we do what we normally did.
We went to the president, and I remember a very specific meeting in January 4th in the Oval Office.
It's one of those things you just don't forget.
We were working on one of the most critical national security missions that I'll literally never be able to talk about.
But it was me, the SACDF, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, President of the United States, and the Chairman of the President.
And once we finished that conversation on January 4th, which was a Monday, the President turned to us and said, okay, guys, what are we doing basically?
And I'm paraphrasing, for security for January 6th, there's reporting there's a lot of people we need to safeguard, not just the people, but Congress and everything else.
So he brought up the idea of utilizing the National Guard.
And the law requires two things.
One, a presidential authorization for any troop deployment via the National Guard.
And two, this is the piece everyone keeps getting wrong.
Two, the law from the Supreme Court, and Pasi Camitadas, says there has to be a formal request from a federal agency or a governor, or in this case, the mayor, since it's Washington, D.C., for that troop assistance.
And if those two things don't happen, then we cannot deploy and employ the National Guard.
I just want to highlight something.
So you're saying here, right, that President Trump himself on the 4th said, hey, should we be deploying, and this is paraphrasing, of course, should we be deploying the National Guard?
It was his idea.
Yeah, I mean, look, his instincts on national security, which was my wheelhouse and law enforcement, have, in my opinion, always been spot on.
And he said, I don't know if we're going to have it, but in case we do, you have my authorization.
You don't need to come back to me at the White House.
And then the next steps are, okay, let's act proactively.
And we've put out this DOD timeline.
We acted proactively before that, even in the end of December, where we went to, and some great reporting by our friend John Solomon put out the United States Capitol Police' own timeline just this past week where the Capitol Police put in writing that the Department of Defense went to them four times before January 4th at the end of December saying, do you guys need National Guard assistance?
And each and every time the sergeant-at-arms of the House, who reports to Nancy Pelosi, and the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, who reports to Chuck Schumer, said no.
And Mayor Bowser, in the first week of January, wrote a letter to us, which is now public, declining the National Guard request that President authorized.
So we could not by law deploy and employ the National Guard.
Well, you would have been seen as like, that would have been seen as a coup, perhaps, right, if you guys had deployed it.
You know, it's very interesting.
At the beginning, so the intelligence around this also changed quite a bit.
Like at the beginning, if I recall correctly, the Capitol Police didn't see a credible threat, didn't have any interest.
But then, you know, as time went on, they felt there was actually a threat, right?
And the chief of police actually went to the sergeant-at-arms and asked about it.
This is, you know, outside of DOD consultation.
Yeah, absolutely.
And this is, again, documenting that timeline, which I know we're going to put up.
But basically, what Jan's referring to is the Department of Defense doesn't collect domestic intelligence.
It's not our job.
It's not the job of the CIA either.
But I am critical of our local law enforcement agencies who should have had more of a reach into what was going on.
I mean, I use this example, and it's somewhat hyperbole, but not really.
In the week leading up to January 6th, how is it that the Dunkin' Donuts and the Starbucks knew to be boarded up, but the Capitol building did not?
Did they have better intelligence than the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
And so, you know, when you politicize the national security apparatus, this is what happens.
When you say, you know, the same people that scolded us for walking across Lafayette Square when towns across America were burning and a certain general had a sidearm and his pistol, these same individuals who accosted us for doing that later on January 6th, and we'll get there fast forward, wanted me to authorize armored plate carriers and belt-fed machine guns down Pennsylvania Avenue along with tanks.
That's what they wanted the scene.
They didn't want the perimeter security fencing, which they could have had weeks before January 6th, the week of January 6th.
I went out at DOD and bought it the night of January 6th and installed it through the courageous members of the National Guard in less than three hours in the morning hours.
They could have done that.
And these are the same people that now tell you they wanted to keep that fence up and make downtown D.C. look like downtown Kandahar.
It was all optics and it was a total failure of national security and law enforcement.
I don't think I know about this.
So what did they ask you to deploy on the streets of Washington, D.C.?
So, you know, quick summary on how the National Guard works.
We operate at the chain of command of the Department of Defense.
And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Vice President are not a part of the chain of command by law.
They cannot direct or order us to do anything.
If we took that order, we would be breaking the chain of command.
The commander-in-chief made a presidential authorization for national troops.
That then goes to the Secretary of Defense.
It's called the National Command Authority.
And what happens thereafter is the Secretary of the Armies is responsible for the duties of the National Guard.
Once we got our authorizations from President Trump, we sent the Secretary of the Army out to the Capitol Police and Mayor Bowser, engaging them on a daily basis, if not multiple times a day, about this authorization we received.
And do you want to make that request?
And every time they said no.
Fast forward to January 6th in the afternoon when unfortunately people are starting to get near and around the Capitol and getting and breaking into the Capitol or walking into the Capitol.
Now our job, now they've made the request.
But what they forget is in order to kit up, deploy, and employ 20,000 National Guards men and women, these people are doctors, lawyers, school teachers, parents, home ed.
They have to be brought out of their daily lives, flown in from across America, given lawful orders, kitted up, trained, and then deployed under the authorities that I just talked about.
That takes a little more than 55 minutes.
And so what these leaders were calling us and scared and yelling at me about, Pelosi included, who her priority during the middle of the riot was she wanted to know when Congressional Food Services was going to reopen.
And me and the Secretary of Defense said, Madam Speaker, we have other priorities like safeguarding the election and the buildings and the people in there.
But this is what they're saying.
And then they're calling us, her and Chuck Schumer and company are calling us and saying, we're the tanks, we're the APC's armored personnel carriers, and we call it crew service weapons.
Crew service weapons are simply the things you literally see in Afghanistan.
Humvees plated up with Belfed machine guns that take four-member crews to operate.
And they had asked for those and Abrams M1A1 tanks to come in.
And we said, what is the purpose?
What are we going to start doing?
Mowing down American citizens with 50 cal machine guns.
And it was an optics play that they wanted.
and I believe, and I have a little more latitude to talk about whatever politically because I just don't care anymore.
And I said, we can secure the building, the perimeter.
We can work with local law enforcement.
We don't need that sort of weaponry in D.C. And I truly, to this day, believe the reason they kept up all the fencing finally afterwards because of the optics plan.
And remember, I reminded people this: the DOD is responsible for the presidential transition inauguration.
And I just want to remind people: we took that mission and those orders from the White House.
So this echo you hear from the January 6th committee that there was supposed to be a coup or after January 6th, we were trying to stop the presidential transition is in complete contradiction to the orders from the White House to transition.
And we, the DOD, executed the largest presidential transition in United States history under President Trump because those were the orders.
Because, so going back to troop numbers, right?
So we ended up deploying somewhere between 15 and 20,000 National Guards men and women.
We did that inside of 12 hours.
It's the fastest cold start mobilization of United States troops since World War II.
And it was the largest occupation of soldiers in uniform in D.C. since the Civil War.
And so that's why we refer to it in those terms, because those are literally, that's literally what happened.
We do reps and sets at DOD all the time.
We prepare, prepare, prepare, prepare, prepare.
And we go up to the law.
We knew these requests would come.
We knew it.
But we could only go so far.
So we went as far, we called the governors, we called the mayors, we called our what we call attitude generals, tags.
They're responsible for their respective National Guard units.
And we said, be on the ready.
We can't ask you to mobilize, but do the paperwork, start warming it up, everything up.
So when we hit go, you guys can go.
And that's what the National Command Authority is supposed to do.
And we did it on that day, even though the select committee, or unselect, whatever you want to call it, on January 6th is talking about.
And, you know, we can get into it or not, but I was subpoenaed by the January 6th Committee.
I was the first person subpoenaed along with Dan Scavino and Mark Meadows.
Cost me $200,000 in lawyers' fees to execute that subpoena.
And I said, I'm going up there.
I don't care.
It's your duty as an American citizen who had the privilege to serve to tell the American people what happened.
But that committee wanted to hear none of what I just told you.
They spent six hours interrogating me.
And I don't know, maybe a 200-page transcript or whatever, which I've pled to be made public every day since.
50 pages were on January 6th.
150 pages were on Afghanistan, Somalia, President Trump, the media, Russiagate, and, you know, how I had all the information on Adam Schiff.
Okay, so which part of this testimony do you think they're really not wanting to see out there?
Well, here's the ironic thing, and I haven't really said this because they're like, you can't talk about your testimony.
I'm like, well, release it.
The purpose of my testimony is not for you to release it piecemeal over a six-day Hollywood bonanza.
The American public should want and have the right to read it in full.
I had to enter to the January 6th Committee the Department of Defense timeline that was signed off on by the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, me, the Secretary of the Army, and 30 other officers in the United States military.
They didn't want that in there.
I put it in there.
Not to mention other timelines and other memorandums regarding delegations of authority relating to January 6th and the actions we took for troop deployment.
I also submitted the Biden Inspector General report on our actions on January 6th and thereafter where the Biden DOD IG said, and I quote, the Department of Defense acted appropriately without failure and without delay.
And I had to put that report into the evidence of record for the January 6th Committee.
They didn't want to do it.
You know, so this is kind of incredible, right?
Because we're looking, I was looking at these headlines of the legacy media, right?
And many of those headlines say, you know, it was a coup.
Trump led the coup, all this kind of stuff.
And they don't seem to be talking about the IG report here.
Well, it's not even Trump's IG report.
And that's the thing.
So I went and actually I've never talked about this.
I went and reread my transcript finally because I've been asking every day since December when I was interrogated to read it.
And they just let me do it last week.
And I read it and I said, where are my exhibits?
Where's the DOD IG report?
Where's the DOD timeline?
Where are the articles?
Where are the memorandums?
Where are the emails?
And they were like, oh, yeah, we forgot.
I was like, well, put them in.
And this is what this committee's focus is.
And that's why people don't have faith in it.
And people talk about coup and insurrection and all, you know, these are legal terms.
Me as a former federal prosecutor, these things actually have meaning.
And when you throw them around and misinform and disinform the American public because you think this was happening, it's literally impossible for a coup to have occurred when the commander-in-chief at the White House said, execute a presidential transition and I'm giving you 20,000 National Guards men and women to secure January 6th.
That's not a coup.
Irrespective of Mark Milley, who's supposed to be the highest-ranking uniformed military officer in the country and apolitical, irrespective of him going out to the January 6th Committee and saying, the vice president gave us orders and we were told to do this.
The vice president of the United States does not give any orders.
He's not in the chain of command.
And the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, it is unconstitutional for him to issue any directives or orders over the United States military.
So the only person being political on that day was Mark Milley because he wanted to keep his job in the incoming administration.
And I think everybody's seen that that guy had more time on his hand to talk to enemies in China, his counterpart, and leak information to the media than bother with securing our withdrawal in Afghanistan.
and you saw the consequences of that.
So there's a bunch of people that have been coming out and saying, two that I flagged were Alan Dershowitz.
and Tulsi Gabbard.
People are saying, you know, no one's going to take, I mean, this is me paraphrasing, of course, but no one's going to take seriously what this January 6th committee is doing because it's so nakedly partisan and nakedly sort of cherry-picking facts to create a narrative and so forth.
What do you think?
Look, for two people, Tulsi Gabbard who and I who shared no political alignment, and for Alan Dershowitz, remember, this guy used to be basically the number one constitutional lawyer in America until he started writing the truth about what happened in the Trump administration.
And that's how far we've come.
How can you just cast aside someone who you've given so much credit to over the years, a Harvard law professor, defense attorney in the O.J. Simpson case, and so many other high-profile matters?
They're just casting them aside and same with Tulsi Gabbard.
And I think they're right.
Look, they got their headlines.
I looked at the Washington Post and New York Times and seen in the next morning they got their coup headlines and their narratives and they're gearing up for the midterm election cycle because they literally have nothing else to run on.
They can't run on the economy or the border or the opioid crisis or China or Iran or Russia or the war in Ukraine.
They can't run on anything.
They can't even stock our shelves here in America.
So this is their political narrative.
But I do believe that the American people are finally seeing through this because of reporting like, you know, that we're doing here at EPOC because they're tired of just these empty headlines.
If it was an actual coup, where's the evidence?
If there was an actual conspiracy to take down the government, where's the evidence?
Where are the people testifying?
Where's the documentation?
Don't you think this committee on January 6th stocked with the likes of Liz Cheney, Adam Kingslinger, Benny Thompson, and of course Adam Schiff, don't you think they would have led with the one piece of evidence that showed there was an actual coup or an insurrection?
That's what they would have led with, but they didn't.
They led with hyperbole, and America's sort of tired of that nonsense.
So we were talking about this a little bit before that.
The composition of the January 6th committee, it's pretty kind of interesting.
It reminds me of something else.
Any thoughts on that, Cash?
I have many thoughts on that, but I promised Jan I wouldn't use names.
Yeah.
No, I'll use their real names.
I won't use the names I have for them.
So, but in all seriousness, right, like, look, as the guy who ran the bipartisan investigation on Rustergate, right, the chief investigator, even though the Democrats didn't want to participate in it, we didn't say who on their side could participate for them.
They were allowed to pick each and every member of that committee, as they should, and has been done literally in our entire history.
This committee kicked off the Republicans that were appointed to it.
And then the speaker went ahead and picked two people who could not be more politically motivated to take down President Trump to serve on this committee.
And the other person on this committee, as if that weren't enough, is the one guy who's responsible for lying to the world more than any single member of Congress in the United States history.
And that's Adam Schiff.
I mean, he has done the single most damage to American intelligence infrastructure and national security by lying year over year and day over day.
And now you want to give this man a post.
I ask America, why don't you just go read the evidence yourselves, but do one thing further.
Look at the composition of this committee.
I'm glad you brought it up because these are the people that told you five years ago Russia conspired with Donald Trump to take down the presidency of the United States and a coup then.
They're now also the ones telling you there was this coup sort of an insurrection that was happening as a result of January 6th.
you have to take their credibility and call it into question here's the thing you know and but the facts don't seem to line up right I mean, that's a nice way of putting it.
So what's the purpose of this?
I mean, I think I go back to, it's a politicization of the national security apparatus.
I'm going to guess how much this investigation costs.
Probably $30, $40 million of American taxpayer money, ballpark.
They've interviewed 1,000, I don't even know how many people.
They could have just called me and asked me to come testify, and I would have done it on national TV so America could hear it.
But they wanted a subpoena.
They wanted to exercise that power.
You know how I found out about my congressional subpoena from the United States Congress?
The Washington Post called me.
I mean, it's hilarious, but it's like people need to know that.
I had two United States Marshals show up at my door the next day.
I wasn't mad at them.
They were doing their job.
They were just executing service of process.
No problem there.
But when I went to the committee, why didn't you call me?
Why didn't you email me?
Why didn't you text me?
You know how to get me.
I know you know how to leak my phone number, my email, so I get death threats on a weekly basis.
No problem there.
And I know Adam Schiff has my number on speed dial, so you could have gotten him to call me.
But they wanted to politicize the national security apparatus and the constitutional oversight at Congress.
That's what I think Americans are seeing, finally.
They didn't really see it the first go-around in Russia Gate, and they sort of caught wind during the impeachment one or impeachment two and however you feel about that.
And then the Afghan troop disaster and the misinformation from the intelligence.
It was just a repeated pattern of conduct.
I think what they do is they just rely on the legacy media to carry their water, hence the headlines.
And now they have, do you guys, by the way, know who they pay?
And also, this is a great question.
They hired a former ABC executive to Hollywoodize this production.
Do you know what this guy did when he was at ABC?
He was the single person responsible for killing the story of Jeffrey Epstein's victims.
That guy is now in charge of the Hollywood production on January 6th on Capitol Hill.
So Cash, some time...
Some good news?
No, but this obviously, we've talked with our friend Lee Smith about this quite a bit.
And part of this, a number of people like Lee believe that part of this is actually designed to demoralize people.
Yeah.
I.e.
maybe some of the people in this room right now, some of the people watching.
I think you're right.
I think it's sort of their play to be like, how do we fatigue?
How do we just slow them down?
And what I say when I, you know, wherever I'm talking, whether it's at a national security event or a political event, to me, there's never been a distinction because my career just hasn't been a political one.
I haven't held a political position.
It's if you believe in it, I think what America has woken up to is you have to do more than just allow your elected officials and people in government to handle it for you.
And I think this room is full of people who know that they have to do more than that.
They have to, whether it's go to events like this, you know, cut a big check for Epoch Times, do it now.
But seriously, whether you drive 10 people to the voting station, whatever it is, everywhere I go, you know, I was speaking to like a thousand people in Nevada just yesterday, the day before, and I asked the crowd, I said, look, I'm glad you're here, and it's awesome that you're showing up to support whatever your candidate, but you have to do more.
You have to go and read real news.
You have to go and find the print media that actually matters or the video media that matters and then tell 10 people about it.
Because we can't get fatigued because too much is on the line.
Because people are actually starting to realize right now under this administration's policies, if you put these people back in power, are we going to have war with Iran?
What's going to happen in Ukraine?
Are we going to be able to feed our kids?
How about the border?
I mean, the border is personal for me because we secured the border when I was heading up Trump's counterterrorism programs, and we shut the opioid trade by 55% in our tenure.
In the last year, we've had more Chinese fentanyl-related deaths for our youth, 100,000, since this administration has come in because the border has been open.
I just don't think suburban families are going to stand for that anymore.
It's too impactful.
Six bucks, seven bucks a gallon at the gas station.
It's too impactful, which is why you're seeing such a big turnout.
So they can try to play the fatigue angle, but I just, I think it's going to fail.
So let's switch gears a little bit.
You know, as we were advertising the live, we mentioned we're going to talk a little bit about the extension of Russia Gate now, the German investigation into it.
You know, of course, there was a trial that we were at that we talked for the last few episodes extensively about.
Mr. Sussman was found to be not guilty.
Surprising for some and expected for others.
You've always been very optimistic.
Has this changed for you?
I think, you know, as a former public defender and federal prosecutor, tried 60 criminal jury cases to verdict in courts across America.
I was, I guess, maybe a little too naive on the faith I had in the DC jury pool and judicial system.
I thought when you showed American citizens the videotape of the bank robbery, which is what John Durham did, he took my interrogation of Michael Sussman four years ago, where I asked him under oath and I said, why did you go to the FBI and who did you go there for?
I went to give him Alphabank information on behalf of my client, i.e.
Hillary Clinton.
He submitted those pages to the jury.
It's black and white.
It's the video.
There's no maybe he did it.
He swore an oath and said that, he, Michael Sussman.
On top of that, there was all the damning information from the FBI witnesses and Hillary Clinton's own campaign manager who said she orchestrated the whole thing and ascended to it and told them to go and do it.
But what the judge excluded, and I don't think a lot of America caught this, was Michael Sussman's own text message to the head of the FBI the night before he went and saw him with the Alphabank server thumb drives, said, I am coming to you as a good Samaritan, as a friend.
I am not coming to you on behalf of any client.
The judge would not let the jury see that text message in this case because he said, oh, it came in after the indictment.
The only reason it came in after the indictment is because the subpoenas were slow rolled by the cell phone carriers.
Yeah, but it was a technicality, basically.
Well, I mean, that's what the judge said.
But what I also learned in my time as a public defender is when you don't have the facts on your side and you don't have the law, you put the cops on trial.
And it's ironic to me that the Hillary Clinton world was putting this, the FBI, on trial, the same FBI that lied to a federal judge and did everything we exposed in Russia Gate.
So it's a system I believed in my entire life and I still do.
My trust in it was heavily eroded by that verdict, especially when one of the jurors who was interviewed afterwards, and a lot of people didn't pay attention to this, she said, they deliberated for less than an hour, by the way, which means they didn't care.
She came out publicly and said, we in the whole in the jury room, everyone was asking, why did the Justice Department waste their money bringing this case?
So that's very telling.
It doesn't matter what kind of trial you put on, they were going to acquit that individual in that seat.
But I'm optimistic because of the information.
For an individual that got acquitted, I haven't seen this much media coverage on that type of trial in my life.
And it forced the legacy media to cover the fact that Hillary Clinton's world participated in this criminal conspiracy.
It also forced John Durham to issue so much information to the public that five years ago we tried to get out in Russia Gate that he has now successfully gotten out there.
And it's the same thing.
You know, the play for me has always been, don't listen to me or Devin or Jan or whatever.
Go and read the documents for yourself.
So we created DurhamWatch.com.
It is an entire free database of every single pleading and product and transcript from John Durham's entire work that anyone can go access any time of day or night.
So I think what we've been talking about on the past shows and the indictments that are coming in the Danchenko case that is coming is still a big positive.
You know, the loss in D.C. is a tough one, but I think we've got some other wins coming.
Well, let's, let, why don't you give us the, Everyone's been so focused that's been following Durham.
It's been so focused on this husband case.
Why don't you give us the quick contours of the Danchenko case?
In some ways, it's almost more of a slam dunk, right?
Or at least some people would say that.
It's certainly that's the way it looks to me.
Yeah, so like remember the Christopher Steele dossier, they said they had this ACE source in there, giving them high-level intel from the bowels of the Kremlin.
Well, it turns out to be this sideshow act, Danchenko, who hadn't been in Moscow in 20 years and who went to the FBI himself and told them during 2017 and 18 that the information I gave Christopher Steele as the source for the Steele dossier, he goes, I quote, was barroom banter that I gave him over beers.
And the FBI and James Comey knew this when James Comey went to brief the Gang of Eight on Capitol Hill and James Comey lied to the Gang of Eight, which included then Chairman Devin Nunes, about the investigation and about the origins of the credibility of it, who was paying for it, the Clinton campaign, and if any of it was true.
They knew that when they went to the Gang of Eight.
So the difference between Suspent and Danchenko, one, Danchenko is being tried out in Virginia, which is way better than D.C. It's not ideal, but it's better.
The other thing is it's not putting Clinton World on trial.
It's putting the source of the Steele dossier on trial.
And a jury is going to be able to easily, easier digest that and leave politics out of it.
But he's charged not once over, but five times over, five separate counts of lying to the FBI.
So the man that built the Steele dossier, which built the unlawful surveillance of a presidential candidate, his campaign and his presidency, is now charged with lying to the very FBI that he gave that information to.
So that's why I think this case has different dynamics.
And I'm sure we'll be covering it, but it's not till the fall.
And I think there's also audio of it, right?
I think you can actually.
Oh, yeah.
There's audio, there's video.
We'll put it all up on the show.
But we wanted to give the folks a rest from Durham.
Well, cash.
So I guess where do you see yourself going?
Oh, boy.
In the coming time.
So you have this.
Is there a bar around here?
Well, you know, you have this.
Everyone has heard, I think, about fight with cash now.
And what is fight with cash?
No, I appreciate that.
So after being mercilessly attacked by the mainstream media, Devin Nunes and I, they went after his grandmother.
They called me a genocidal dictator, which I always tell people is ironic since I'm the son of a man who actually fled a genocidal dictatorship.
And I was the first minority to ever be chief of staff of the Department of Defense or the Deputy Director of National Intelligence.
You know, you want to launch a fight, you want to launch a fight to clear your name.
But what I learned along the way was so many Americans have been defamed, so many Americans have been deplatformed.
And fightwithcash.com is our way of fighting back collectively.
It's a charity that I set up.
We travel the country, we raise money, and we file lawsuits for people whose names have been defamed and deplatformed.
And we help pay for kids' camps and we help pay for kids' tuitions.
And it's our way of giving back to the community because, you know, as you gain notoriety, it's incumbent.
I've always been taught it's incumbent on yourself, whether it's notoriety or fame, use that for good.
And so that's what fightwithcash.com does.
We have a cool merch, by the way, no big deal.
But all the money goes back in.
I'm suing CNN, Politico, the New York Times, some left-wing outfits.
We're suing them for hundreds of millions of dollars.
It's not about the money.
We're going to publicize every single case and every kid that we help and every person that was defamed.
And we're going to make sure the mainstream media receives the only silver bullet that matters.
And that's one to their bottom line.
So thank you for letting me talk about Fight With Clash.
So there's people that have been joining our live chat.
Thank you, everybody, for doing that.
We got a few questions.
This one I think we started on earlier.
It was, what was the biggest part of your January 6th transcript that has been kept hidden from the public?
The whole thing?
I mean, I wish I was joking, right?
They keep telling me, like, you know, the committee announced publicly that they're only going to piecemeal release what they want, and their investigation is still ongoing.
What do you have to hide about my transcript?
What about the exhibits and evidence do you have to hide?
You know, we've been over this, so I don't want to repeat it, but it's shocking to me.
It's actually not shocking to me, I guess, that Adam Schiff would allow these transcripts to be sat on.
Remember, the Russiagate transcripts that we took four or five years ago, 60 of them?
I didn't get them out till two years later when I was a deputy DNI and I forced their declassification with Rick Renell at the helm.
That's how long it took.
So we might be waiting that long.
Based on the activities of the January 6th committee, will it be actually possible to indict President Trump, which to many people appears to be the goal?
So I think that's a great question.
So that's what they're going for in the headlines: you know, indicting Trump or his closed advisors with an insurrection or sedition or what have you.
And legally, you know, it's just my opinion as a former federal prosecutor, it's not going to happen.
You can't do that.
You can't meet that bar.
Most namely because the evidence does not exist to support any of those convictions or charges for that matter.
But what they will do is try the case in the public.
They'll use the media to say these things, and then half of America who's been bamboozled by the likes of Adam Schiff into believing this happened will go to the polls.
This is their hope and believe that it continued to happen.
All right.
It seems likely that the FBI or feds were involved in the planning and execution of what played out on January 6th.
What do you have to say about this?
It seems like there may have been many different factions involved.
Well, I think there needs to be an actual January - I firmly have always supported an actual bipartisan investigation for January 6th to figure out what happened, why it went wrong, and how we never let that happen again.
100%.
And it's been publicly reported now that there's been FBI informants and undercover operators in and around the January 6th unrest, including online and in person.
Well, we figured out during Russia Gate that they did the same play.
What were they doing allowing undercover informants and FBI agents to be there in plain clothes?
Why hasn't the American public received those answers?
Why haven't we seen all the footage that Josh referenced earlier?
You know, that should at least be put out for us to see because that's the videotape.
And I think the January 6th Committee has a lot of this information.
They have a lot of the memorandums that I've called for to be publicly released.
And they're keeping them from the public.
And that, I think, is the ultimate violation of what they're attempting to do.
So, I mean, you're basic, what you would like to see is a proper, bipartisan, thorough January 6th Commission that can actually ascertain the entirety of what happened, for better or for worse.
Yeah, because what we've come to learn is this is just one example.
So the 9-11 Commission, me being a national security guy, you know, that was a blue part, bipartisan blue panel commission that actually showed why 9-11 occurred.
We were stovepiping intelligence from each and every agency and not sharing it.
That was one of the major reasons and one of the major fixes.
It seems from the investigation that we've seen so far in January 6th that some agencies had information about January 6th happening and didn't share it.
Why would they do that?
What's worse is that we now have, again, thanks to John Solomon's reporting in the Capitol Police timeline, Chuck Schumer was, his office was given the information that there was going to be violence at the Capitol on January 6th, days before it.
Why didn't he do anything with it?
How come he never shared it with us?
He didn't call the Department of Defense and say, hey, we need National Guard.
He could have.
These are the questions that are going to, I think, tear apart this committee's credibility along with everything else we've talked about.
But those are the questions that the American public are owed answers for.
And that's why I think a true commission is needed.
But you won't see that until at least after November.
Do I have to ask this question?
Cash, did you take Jan shopping for his boots yet?
Finally.
So it's the one day I don't wear my cowboy boots, Jan.
You're killing me.
So I'm a big cowboy boot guy, and I only wear Lucasie.
And I've been trying to get Jan in on it.
And the people on our live chats have been egging Jan on to go cowboy boot shopping with me.
So I think what we're going to have to do is just do a live show in Southwest Texas.
Well, Cash, I think it's time for that, you know, end of show moment, the shout out.
Yeah, so we have a tradition here on Cash's Corner where we honor some of our guests and our followers and our fans.
But tonight, since we're doing such a special edition of the show, tonight's shout-out for Cassius Corner goes to everybody in the audience here in Orange County, California.
Thank you so much for inviting us to your backyard.
I wish I could afford to live here.
But we love it.
But it's been a wonderful trip, and I can't believe it's been four seasons.
We really appreciate all the commentary and all the feedback on our live chat on Truth Social at Cash and at Yan and Kellek and Epoch TV.
We get some amazing feedback from y'all.
We're always looking for your ideas and creativity to support the show.
Again, I can't believe it's been four seasons.
And though this is the last episode of this season, Jan, where do we go next?
Well, yeah, so we're going to actually take a few weeks off.
It's about three, and we're going to restart basically the week right after that week of Independence Day.
So we'll restart there.
And we've actually got a very special interview that we're going to do then.
And Cash is actually going to sit down with his former boss, Devin Nunes.
We already did Trump earlier.
Come on, we'll get back to him later.
Yeah, so, and that actually we'll have, and we'll do that actually from this former district, from his home.
It'll be what we call the Russia Gate gangster operation.
So I just wanted to say it to everybody, bing.
Thank you everybody for being such huge fans of Cassius Corners and American thought leaders.
It's incredible to have you all.
I'm saying this of course to everybody that's tuning in to the live show right now.
