Kash Patel Breaks Down Top 3 Investigations House Republicans Should Launch ‘On Day One’
“What the Republican Party has to do is decide: Are we going to jump in and play by the same rules that the Democrats have been and go big on mail-in ballots? And my advice to the Republican Party is yes,” says Kash Patel.In this episode of Kash’s Corner, we discuss the results of the midterm elections and Trump’s recent announcement he’s running for president in 2024.With Congress now split, Kash breaks down the three investigations he believes House Republicans should launch “on day one.” How can House Republicans force federal agencies to turn over documents?“Republicans should remind America and the agencies more importantly … that they control the purse strings,” says Kash Patel.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
I'm down here in West Palm Beach, Florida, where I just was at Mar-a-Lago last night for President Trump's announcement of his candidacy to seek the presidency yet again.
And Jan is back in Washington, D.C. How are you doing, my friend?
I am doing fantastically well.
And the reason is we are beginning season six, and I cannot believe that it is season six.
And unfortunately we don't get to be together today because we had some respective important events we had to participate in.
And uh we need to basically catch up, I guess, on what has been happening.
And the big thing, of course, is the election, and then the event that you were there for, which is basically uh Trump announcing.
So we got a lot to unpack there.
We promised our viewers we would talk about both the House and the Senate, the repercussions of the vote, what investigations might occur, and how the budgeting cycle might operate, and we'll dive into all that.
But I think you're right.
I guess we gotta start at the epicenter of the political universe right now, which is Mar-a-Lago, Florida.
As expected, you know, the uh President Trump basically said he would have a special announcement on the 15th, and and true to form he did.
Um and he gave a speech, and I thought it was it was quite interesting because it was a different tone than I'm used to seeing from him.
And and also the other thing that I noticed was he he talked quite a bit about China having you know gained quite a bit of experience uh, you know, dealing with China during the the four years that he was in.
Um why don't you dive in and tell me what you're seeing?
Now you're the China expert, but I will touch on a piece of it that is sort of in my in my universe of space.
And you're right.
You know, uh uh I was reminded last night why Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016.
And it wasn't a rally, it was an announcement to seek the candidacy to be the commander-in-chief again.
And I think what he replicated um hearkening back to 2015 and 16 was he put out solutions uh after identifying major problems facing America writ large.
Um not just our communities in a singular fashion, but our nation as a whole.
And for me as a national security intel defense guy, I have to start with the border.
And we've seen over the last two years, and this is one of the things President Trump talked about a lot, was the uh pouring through of the border of narcotics, specifically Chinese fentanyl, which is killing a hundred thousand of our youth a year.
And an astonishing statistic that Donald Trump highlighted last night was drug dealers overall.
Every drug dealer in America is at the end of the day responsible for an average of five hundred overdose deaths during their drug dealing career.
That is just astonishing, Jan.
And I think when you say it like that, America gets shocked and they're like, wow, we really have a drug problem.
And we do, and we specifically have a Chinese fentanyl problem now that they're fashioning it, especially in ways of delivery to make it appealing to younger youths and even children, i.e.
they're doing gummy bears and whatnot.
And so what he identified was we're gonna take on China.
Um for me, taking on the fentanyl trade and sealing the border was a massive part of last night's announcement.
Related to that, he also of course identified the illegal immigration and the crime that that sort of goes hand in hand with having an open border and not knowing who's coming in, and talking about things like how we have dozens of identified foreign terrorists have snuck in through the border and we don't know where they are currently.
Um that to me is a national security crisis.
So he identified these things.
He talked heavily about the economy and inflation, which is affecting literally every American.
And he talked about ways to achieve results he had during his first presidency.
And I think that's what resonated with America last night, and especially for me when you're talking about it was a different tone.
It was uh it was very even key, and he was speaking about how he would solve America's problems.
And if you're gonna run for president of the United States, you have to not just identify them, but Present actual solutions and he offered a bunch last night.
No, absolutely.
And you know, with the fentanyl, I'll just remind our viewers briefly that uh the way that Chinese regime operates, it's a little bit about like a mafia state.
So if Xi Jinping, who now is ruler for life since the new uh the most recent Congress, if he wanted to have fentanyl flow stop to the US as he you know promised the president once, um he could do it, you know, essentially like this because people would know that if you don't, basically you're gonna face the toughest repercussions you can possibly imagine.
So um the other thing that he mentioned, which um I think is of critical importance is the basically repatriation of supply chains and and of course and manufacturing, a really critical one, which is kind of existential for the U.S., which frankly what they targeted it in the past administration, but not much has changed as far as I know is basically the medical precursors.
A lot of the elements of the medicines that we use all the time in the U.S. are are made in China, and that is a massive potential amount of leverage that the C CP has over the U.S. Yeah, it's it it's a national security threat because it's coming from the C C P in China, and I think it's not the most sexy topic, but it's one of the most critical because you're talking about the pharmaceutical industry.
And what President Trump focused on in his first term was making or opening up the pharmaceutical industry to other countries and to have Americans have the right to pick uh what prescriptions and where they come from to make them more affordable, and also at the same time not relying solely or heavily on the CCP in China.
So I think that was a big part of his uh address last night.
And two things stuck out to me that I actually wasn't expecting.
One, he took on, of course, the deep state, but he took it to the next level, in my opinion.
He said, yes, we have to drain the swamp, yes, we have to take on corruption.
But he set out a mandate for congressional term limits for senators and house of representative members.
I have not heard a president campaign on that ever in my lifetime.
And that is something that is growing, I think, in America.
That is something that America, I think, has learned that unless you have term limits on our representatives, both in the Senate and the House in Washington, D.C., there's no way to drain the swamp.
So that's a campaign that uh a campaign measure that's gonna attract a lot of attention.
The other one that's uh maybe I'm a little biased but but stuck well with me was how he um said we have to of course support our law enforcement and our military.
But he took it one step further.
And he said those that were brave enough to serve our country and were tragically forced to choose between their faith and serving our country in a law enforcement or military capacity was one of the most un-American things he's ever heard of, and I agree with him.
And what he meant was people were forced to choose between their faith and taking this the China virus jab.
And thousands of employees of service members, of federal law enforcement agents were terminated because of that, because they chose their faith.
And he said, We will rehire and reinstate every single one who was terminated because of that justification with back pay.
To me, I think that's gonna between the congressional term limits and the support of our military and law enforcement, those are probably two of my biggest takeaways outside what we just talked about.
And you know, I haven't discussed this with anyone, but I had a private uh dinner with President Trump after last night's announcement, and we were talking about the efficacy of his of his speech.
Uh and I told him I think that the tone that he struck and the subjects that he hit were not just a rally-style speech, but a a message to Americans from what a commander-in-chief can do if he identifies problems but also offers solutions.
And and I thought he did an excellent job of putting it out there.
Now, you know, the two-year race begins.
You know, what that really did strike me, this uh his focus on mandates, there will be no mandates of any sort, I believe he mentioned that.
And so this, you know, health that will definitely resonate with the health freedom movement people out there.
Um so well, I I guess one thing I wanted to mention is there's a few things he didn't talk about, which was one of them was other potential uh, you know, candidates for the presidency on the Republican side.
There was no mention of that.
Um there wasn't any mention of you know, uh election fraud either.
I thought that was interesting.
Yeah, and I think you know, the message was forward, not backwards.
And I totally agree with that.
You know, maybe when you're on the stump rallying for candidates, you can talk about what happened to you personally in the past.
But I think the message in the theme was how are we going to fix tomorrow in the future?
And that theme, I think, served President Trump tremendously well last night because it offered a forward-looking vision of how to solve America's problems that have occurred.
And he didn't need to regurgitate all the history as to why we are in this mess.
We're in this mess.
We know who the president is right now.
And I also think he did a splendid job of keeping it just between the buoys, as we say, and not discussing who might be political opponents and not overly politicizing a political announcement, keeping it substantive on national security, on health care, on education, um, talking about, you know, men not participating in women's sports.
It got one of the route biggest rousing ovations I've ever heard at Mar-a-Lago.
And I think a lot of people feel that way about things like that.
So when he talks about that as a commander-in-chief and hope maybe the next commander in chief, people will listen to that message, and I think that's what he did uh very well uh with the style and grace that you know, when bringing uh the first lady up on stage and watching them walk into the ballroom,
you could see that this was a movement they are in together, and um he gave America of an actual vision of what a Donald J. Trump presidency would look like with Melania Trump as his first lady.
Well, I think we gotta jump to the midterms here.
We're gonna have a lot to cover, I think.
Well, actually, let's start here.
Let's start with I guess the red wave that didn't happen that you know many of the pollsters were expecting.
Um there were situations like, for example, in Pennsylvania where you had, you know, there was even on the the state representative ballot, there was an actual candidate who had died who got elected, which was kind of almost unbelievable.
And so there's been a lot of theories as to why this exactly happened.
And you know, one of the things that has been resonating with me is that there's been this kind of shift in certain states uh in the way voting is done from people this has been described as a shift from voting to balloting, right?
Where basically, you know, if you and it's kind of getting people that you would call uh less engaged voters out.
So if you have people if ballot harvesting is legal in a state, people can go out and they can kind of you know motivate the people that are unmotivated.
If you have a mish essentially a machine that can do this, you can get out a lot of ballots in ways that traditionally appealing to voters wouldn't work at all.
So and the argument is that this is what the Democrats did very successfully in a number of places to the point where you know the actual day vote didn't actually matter anymore, like in Pennsylvania.
This what do you think?
I have a lot to unpack in that.
And I think some of the people that are watching this show might find what I'm about to say unexpected.
But here's what the Republican Party has to decide.
They have rallied against early day mail-in voting, whatever you want to call it, early decision voting, because at the core value of the conservative base, they feel election day should be on election day.
Now, the state legislatures, as you and I have outlined extensively on the show, control how Arizona votes, how Florida votes, how Iowa votes, how Pennsylvania votes.
And what the Republicans have tried to do is recapture the legislatures and the statewide offices so that they can go back and change the laws to allow for just say same-day paper dialot voting, which is another thing President Trump talked about last night.
But if you can't capture the legislatures and the state AG's office and the state gubernatorial office, then you can't change the laws.
So they tried that.
And it's failed in two consecutive election cycles for a number of candidates.
So what the Republican Party has to do is decide, are we gonna jump in and play by the same rules that the Democrats have been and go big on mail-in ballot?
And my advice to the Republican Party is yes.
Go big on mail-in ballots because right now that's the lay of the land.
And as you said, Jan, When it came to certain states in certain races, election day almost didn't matter.
It wasn't of consequence because so many hundreds of thousands of ballots had been issued in the weeks prior to.
And I'm not saying you have to get rid of election day voting and/or get rid of mail-in voting, right?
You can take a hybrid.
And let's look at a couple of examples, right?
Iowa, Missouri, Florida.
When you compare those states to my home state of Nevada, you're talking about states that have two and three times the population of Nevada are able to meticulously count every vote while having early day voting and mail-in voting and same-day voting and give us a concrete result the night of the election.
If they can do it, why can't other states?
And the answer is because other states choose not to do it.
Other states allow mail-in voting to go past election day, like Nevada, like Nevada, they don't have voter ID.
So literally you can vote via mail five days after election day in the state of Nevada.
I think what Republicans need to do is make some definitive decisions.
Are they going to get behind the mail-in voting ballot structures in the toss-up states that we've identified?
Pennsylvania, Georgia, for uh Nevada, Arizona.
And if they decide to do that, are they going to actually get out and collect ballots lawfully like the Democrats have done and go over to independence and say we are going to collect your ballots pursuant to the laws of the state and mail them in for you?
Are they going to be able to collect an extra hundred, two hundred thousand votes per state?
I think they will.
But I think a lot of Republicans are fighting internally with their core beliefs.
They don't want that to be the way voting is done.
But here's the reality for Republicans.
That is the way voting is done.
And in the last two election cycles, Republicans have lost certain seats, even I expected them to win because they were outperformed, not on policy, I believe, but they were outperformed on metrics and logistics.
And it's something the Democratic Party just outplayed them on.
So the Republican Party has to decide.
And then are we going to be able to finally get the legislatures and the governatorial candidates in the offices we want to change?
It's a it's a practice that can't happen overnight.
And you know, when we talk about the Senate in a second versus the House, you'll see why some of these positions may have cost Republicans been the actual reason that the Republicans got um stuck in the minority again in the Senate.
You know, um one of the things that I'm thinking about now is there's a number of races that were close in California that went to the Republican side, and I get the sense that in those races, this is uh basically where they did go in on the ballot harvesting, where you know ballot harvesting has been legal for some time and the machine basically was built out to do that uh ballot harvesting.
Yeah, so look, I have some personal knowledge there, you know, um and and put my bias out there.
My my dear friend Rick Rennell has a massive initiative as a Californian that he calls fixed California.
And we were actually together last night and doing some of the math on some of these tight house races.
Literally the house race that was called just an hour before President Trump gave his remarks that gave the Republicans the majority in the House and retired Nancy Pelosi.
And what they were able to do out there was they registered tens of thousands of new Republican voters in these consequential districts, and then also got them to use the mail-in ballot system along with election day voting to get some of these candidates across the finish line.
And you're talking about margins that are somewhere in between one and five thousand for two or three of these races.
That's not a lot of votes, Jan.
But California, at least on the Republican side in these races, chose to play by the rules that the Democrats were playing by, and look what happened.
We picked up a few seats, and some of them are the ones that allowed Republicans to have the majority again in Congress.
It seems pretty clear that the Democrats will have the majority in the Senate this time around, and the House is going to be Republican.
So what are the implications of that in your mind?
So let's start with the Senate, right?
Right now, Democrats have 50 seats, Republicans have 49, and we have a runoff in Georgia in about three weeks with Herschel Walker and Warnock running off for the Senate seat there.
And that if Republicans win, it'll go back to 50-50, and reminding our audience, 50-50 is exactly where it's at Now, how the Democrats get the majority is because the tie-breaking vote, if there's a 50-50 Senate, goes to the vice president, which is Kamala Harris, who will vote and give the Democrats in the Senate of the majority, as they've had the last two years.
So they even if Herschel Walker wins, the Democrats will end up with the Senate majority.
So budgeting processes start in the House of Representatives by law.
Then they go over to the Senate.
So we could circle back to that, but in terms of just putting out money for the government to operate under a Biden agenda, it has to start and be authorized by 218 people in the House of Representatives.
Now that can of course be a mix of Democrats and Republicans, but we aren't in those times, and we haven't been in those times for years.
And what I'd like to highlight though is from my time back doing the Russia Gate investigation on House Intel when the Republicans were in the majority.
What does that mean?
It means whoever's in the majority has the gavels, or as we say they're the chairmen or chairwoman of each separate committee.
Foreign affairs, judiciary, intel, oversight.
All of these committees have specific jurisdiction over things like the State Department, the FBI, the DOJ, the DOD, the CIA, etc.
And what you're allowed to do when you're in the majority is conduct constitutional oversight of each agency within each branch of government.
And the legislature's job is critical in this because no other branch of government can play this role.
So I have said the top three investigations that Republicans should launch on day one out of the House of Representatives is one on DOJ and FBI, and if you haven't seen an episode of Cash's Corner, um then you'll know uh then you're not be familiar with why, but Jan and I have covered it extensively as we think there's an extensive amount of corruption in the DOJ and FBI.
Two, Fauci.
And that's emblematic of a lot of things.
It's not just him as a person, it's him in terms of his messaging as the leading health expert in the United States government from when COVID started to his messaging on the origins of the vaxx of the virus, excuse me, to his messaging on the vaccine.
And if you've watched him testify, he has been caught lying or misleading the American public and Congress on numerous occasions.
And we are owed answers because millions of Americans and millions of people around the world decided their health status of them and their families and what to do with their kids and schooling and mass mandates based on this information.
And if it was fraudulently given or intentionally misleading, then that uh individual or individual such as Fauci need to be held account, and the only way to do that in the current environment is through a congressional oversight investigation.
And the third one that I think um is as important as the other two is the border.
And what I think is a complete failure at the border for also reasons we've outlined in the past on the show, but main mainly to me, it's the invasion of the by the narco traffickers of not just Chinese fentanyl, but all the drugs cocaine, heroin, meth, everything else that's killing so many Americans, and the human trafficking issue, which actually is another thing President Trump brought up last night.
He wants to again, like he did in this first administration, tackle human trafficking.
We have seen it rise to levels it hasn't been in years, Jan.
We're talking about child sex exploitation trafficking, the human tracking of women, the human trafficking of what we would call modern day slave labor.
This is all going on in record numbers, and that's why I think an oversight investigation of DHS, Majorcus, and everyone there needs to be the third main investigation that Congress can launch in the House of Representatives with a Republican majority.
They can do a number of other ones, and they have a whole lot of other work to do.
Um, but that is I think a starting point as to where a Republican agenda in the House of Representatives should start.
Well, the one that I he I've heard about a number of times is being postulated as the investigation of Hunter Biden's dealings with China and Ukraine.
Yeah.
And so that sort of fits in, you can do it a couple of ways, John, right?
You can give that investigation on its whole to one specific committee.
You can create a standalone committee, which I don't think uh anybody really has an appetite for, but maybe they'll do that, or you can break it up.
You can say, okay, Hunter Biden's laptop as it relates to foreign dealings with China can go to the foreign affairs committee.
Hunter Biden's laptop, as it relates to substantive criminal conduct, would go to the judiciary committee because they are oversights of DOJ and FBI.
And then if there's intelligence failures or intelligence information and gaps or leaks or things like that on there, then that would go to the Intelligence Committee.
Now these committees can also have an agreement amongst each other.
Intel and judiciary can get together and say, hey, look, we know there's a piece of intel on this, we'll help you out on the side, but you guys are the lead.
You run the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, like we ran the RussiaGate investigation.
Um yes, it was run out of the House Intel Committee because there was many intelligence components to it, but as we now know, years later, there was many components for FBI and DOJ in terms of law enforcement.
There's many components to the courts, and there's many components to just the overall national security of American elections.
And we packaged in one place.
And so Hunter Biden's laptop, I think is another example of something that can be done like that.
And my suggestion would be that it go to the Judiciary Committee for an oversight investigation.
That's absolutely fascinating.
You know, one thing that I struck me here is that uh it's something we talked about on a previous show is you mentioned how um, you know, when let's say agencies and so forth that are being investigated or are being asked for information are not forthcoming with that information, you have this technique that you use to basically withhold funds, and that would elicit, you know, a quick response.
So I thought maybe I'd get you to comment on that.
Yeah, so look, um, and this is a good, I'm gonna get to that in a second, but it raised another great point that I want to talk about.
Right now, what you see in the Republican Party on the House of Representative sides is you see people who are challenging the presumptive speaker, Kevin McCarthy for speakership.
And the reason that that's going on is because each side of the Republican faction there knows they don't have 218 themselves to get it.
So what's gonna happen is horse trading, jockeying.
The the minority caucus is gonna say, and rightfully so, I think, hey, we want some of our men and women to lead some of these committees.
Because we want to focus on Hunter Biden's laptop.
We want to focus on the border.
The other things you're gonna be talking about with Kevin McCarthy, who's the pre at this time the presumptive speaker of the House for the Republicans, is okay, what about authority?
Are you, the Speaker of the House, going to delegate your authority down to committee chairmen and women so we don't have to come back and ask you every time we want to issue a subpoena?
Now Kevin McCarthy has publicly promised that already, which is a significant step.
It's lawful, it's permissible.
The Democrats have done it uh while they've been in the majority.
And so these little mechanisms that people don't think about, but that people learned about through the select committee on January 6th, the power of a congressional subpoena, what it means, how to produce documents, how to get witnesses to come in and testify for as long as it takes.
These are all tools and lessons I think the Republican Party has learned.
And what's going on right now is they are setting the table so they can execute on that agenda in this in this speaker race for lack of uh of a better term.
So, Jan, you you you know me well, and I think we've said it on the past before, but the one thing people in Washington, especially the bureaucrats in Washington respond to, is money.
Their agencies and their departments cannot run without taxpayer dollars.
It's that simple.
It cannot run without a budget that originates in the House of Representatives, and that both chambers pass and that the president signs.
And so what we learned during RussiaGate was we were facing an extreme amount of resistance from the DOJ and FBI that was put in place by the Trump administration themselves.
Figures like Rod Rosenstein and Chris Ray that we've talked about extensively on the show, were given congressional subpoenas, and not one, but north of ten congressional subpoenas for documents, for witnesses, for information, and we were stonewalled.
And only on one occasion did Paul Ryan at the time let us pull the pull the uh mechanisms, the levers in Congress to force them to produce it.
And what we did was call this thing called fencing.
You don't take all the money in the budget, I don't think that's the right approach, but you are allowed as Congress to build these um make believe fences around buckets of money, and you tell these agencies and departments, if you want the five million for X, please comply with the congressional subpoena and produce the documents.
And you know what happened, Jan?
Overnight, we got in thousands of pages of documents relating to Brusor, relating to the FISA court, relating to all the material we've done we've jumped into so deeply.
And it just shows you that they were stonewalling because they were covering up their corruption.
And I think that's what's going to happen again, and I think that's what is going to be the nemesis of the Republicans in the House of Representatives when they're in the majority, but there's ways to overcome it.
There's another thing called the the home the Holman rule.
And that's basically what I described.
And what it says is if politics in the executive branch don't comply with congressional requests, subpoenas and f and whatnot, then you take all their money.
And that's an extreme measure, and it's on the table, but Republicans should remind America and the agencies more importantly that it is on the table and that they control the purse strings.
So they're gonna have to unify.
That's the other thing, Jan.
The Republicans, even with the majority in the House, um, if they only have a majority that's two, three, four, five seats strong, they can't afford to lose many, right?
And if they lose more than a few, then they don't have the votes to hold that majority.
So Republicans are gonna have to come together on on many of these investigations in unison if they want to see results, and I think they owe those results to the American people, that's my personal opinion.
But too many unanswered questions on FBI DOJ, too many unanswered questions on January 6th, and Ray Epps and all that information, too many unanswered questions from the Durham investigation and the border and Fauci and COVID origins and the efficacy of the mandates and so much other information that we as Americans are owed.
And the Republican Party has an opportunity to go into Congress and say, we work for you, America, and this is our list of investigations and topics we are going to take on for you.
So Cash, as we're finishing up here, um I can't help but think that there is one investigation I would be very interested in in understanding um, you know, basically executive branch, big tech, you know, collaboration around censorship and messaging.
It just, you know, there there is a lot of evidence that has now come up to come out through FOYS.
Do you expect that the House will be picking this up in some way and how could they do it?
Yeah, look, that's a topic we we probably definitely don't have time to fully jump into today, but I think the free speech, big tech uh is gonna be front and center.
I mean, just look what's going on with Elon Musk and Twitter, and you see the the individuals and groups that have normally championed Twitter are now going after Twitter.
And this conversation is just beginning, and Elon Musk takeover is just beginning, and he's already firing thousands of employees and reforming Twitter.
So we will see what side of free speech places like that fall on.
But I think what Congress will do is go in there and say, are you a free speech platform?
And if you're a free speech platform, we've talked about this in the past, but will Congress re revisit Section 230?
That is, will they offer these social media giants the protections against defamation just because they say there's a federal law that allows it?
That law can be undone.
And many Republicans have called for the undoing of that law.
So that is a gargantuan conversation, and when you attach the the TikToks of the world to it, and the fact that the CCP in China are literally stealing everyday Americans' information.
You know, on Truth Social, I heard someone describe TikTok as the modern day digital Chinese fentanyl.
And I couldn't come up with a better description of just that.
That's exactly what it's doing.
It is stealing our information for the benefit of our adversary, and we are letting them do it.
And then there's a whole notion that um what's I think borne out by the recent election, a lot of the youth, um, the 18 to 28 bracket of voters voted almost exclusively based off what they saw and heard on TikTok.
And so that's another matter that the Republicans are gonna have to address along with Congress in terms of how free speech and how these social media platforms fold in with elections.
To your point um about TikTok and big tech in general, so you know, Dr. Robert Epstein has been someone that's been on my show a number of times on American Thought Leaders talking about how big tech has the ability and actually does this to shift votes of undecided voters in uh a d particular direction, notably to the Democrats.
This is what Dr. Robert Epstein has been has been arguing here.
There's an op-ed on our site as we speak that's titled Um Google Stopped the Red Wave.
And he's basically saying that, you know, based on his research and his monitoring of the these kind of ephemeral experiences where the search results are stocked in a particular way.
What that actually creates is a situation where people are that are undecided or shifting their votes are being kind of shifted in the in a direction that that big tech is interested in seeing them shifted.
Now think about what that would look like with TikTok, which isn't being monitored and essentially is under the control of the Chinese Communist Party.
No, I think you're right.
And look, we definitely don't have time to get into the whole ramifications of all of big tech.
And when I think big tech, I now think of another topic, the uh crypto exchange that just went belly up and now it's being reported that millions and millions were tied to bankrolling democratic initiatives.
You know, that's a whole separate investigation that Congress will have to probably take on and involves directly big tech.
Um so we'll probably have to do a show just on that.
But you know, since the theme of this show has been elections, Jan, and I know you asked about the red wave earlier, and I only partially answered it.
I do feel, you know, I owe to the audience a complete answer.
You know, it's no surprise I was out there on the campaign trail, and even I thought in the Senate the Republicans would get to 51 and they fell short.
So why is that?
Well, there's a couple of things.
We always talk about disinformation on this show, and we always call it out where we see it.
I think the media played a part in this so-called quote unquote red wave.
I'm not sure where that started or who started saying it first, but when you are the party in the minority and you seize the majority, that's a wave, red or blue, whichever way it's going.
And when the Republicans picked up the House of Representatives, that's a monumental win for all the reasons we've talked about and the changing of the gavels and the guard, Nancy Pelosi will no longer be Speaker of the House.
Now that didn't happen in the Senate.
And why didn't it?
And I think it has to do with the uh early day voting initiatives that we talked about, the mail-in ballot initiatives that I think Democrats worked harder at.
And I think there's one more uh specific reason that I haven't mentioned, and that is I believe some of the candidates on the Republican side of the House and Senate failed to connect with the independent voting base on kitchen table issues.
That is, they had, of course, Donald Trump out there, and a lot of the media is sort of blaming him, quote unquote, for the lack of this big red wave.
I don't really agree with that analysis.
Donald Trump set the landscape.
He went out there and did something like 3540 rallies around the country.
Um his uh numbers in the win-loss column were pretty astounding when when you look at it, pretty historic.
And this, I think, is part of the disinformation uh narrative.
I think uh a guy like Donald Trump sets the stage, and the candidates have to come in and say, How am I gonna get you, Western Pennsylvania, 10,000 more jobs?
How am I gonna get you, Arizona in the Southeast Corner, better health care?
What am I gonna do for the education platform in the outlying districts surrounding Las Vegas?
These are the what what I call kitchen table issues that I think certain candidates failed to connect on.
And I think the Democratic candidates not only connected on them, but also used the mail-in ballot initiatives to sort of catapult uh that uh that process.
And then there's of course uh the issue of abortion.
And whatever your position is on abortion, we're not on the show here to get into it.
I think the messaging on abortion when it came to the Democrats was much better in much more unison than it was for the Republicans.
They went out there and again, bringing up disinformation, they talked about the Hobbes decision from the Supreme Court.
Now it didn't uh federally revoke anyone's right to an abortion.
What it did was, and what I constitutionally agree with was said abortion is a state's right issue.
But because we had that unprecedented leak of the draft opinion from Dobbs, the Democrats seized on that.
And if you look at the outlying statistics after election day, single women in America broke 70 30 to Democratic candidates.
That is a large voting block that the messaging campaign was missed on.
And I'm not saying you have to be for abortion or against it.
That's your personal decision.
What I'm saying is Republicans didn't message successfully on the law is each state will decide the status of abortion.
And uh for those reasons, uh collectively, I think uh the Republicans fell short in the Senate of the anticipated 51, 52 seat majority.
But I think candidates successfully, for those the opposite of those same reasons uh on the Republican side, are why they won enough seats or will win enough seats in the House to take the majority there.
Well, Cash, I think this is our show for today, you know, episode one of season six.
I and I think it's time for our shout out.
You're right, Yan.
And for those of us joining Cash's Corner for the first time after six seasons, yes, at the end of the show, we have a tradition of giving our fans a shout out who've participated in our live chats on our messaging boards.
And uh Yan and I engage with them on a weekly, if not daily basis.
Today's shout out goes to Betsy Fitzer.
Thanks so much for your support for our show here on Cash's Corner and Epoch Times and Epoch TV.
We appreciate your comments.
We appreciate everybody's comments, and I think this week, one of us at least will be back live on Cash's Corner for the chat feed during our program, which airs on Friday evenings at 8 p.m.
So thank you everybody for your support over these five seasons.
