Kash’s Corner: What Did the FBI Know Before Jan. 6?
What did the FBI know in the weeks and days leading up to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach? Is the Department of Justice possibly committing Brady violations?“When Christopher Wray told the world that the FBI had no … verifiable or credible evidence that January 6 was going to happen, that’s a complete and total lie because they had placed FBI confidential human sources there,” argues Kash Patel.“The Department of Justice is taking an active position to prosecute people when they have not fully investigated the case and know[ing] there’s information out there that might be beneficial to a number of the defendants they are currently prosecuting.”We discuss recent reporting about FBI informants within Proud Boys, Christopher Wray’s testimony on Jan. 6, and likely Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy’s plans to remove Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Eric Swalwell, and Rep. Ilhan Omar from committee assignments.
Happy Thanksgiving to our Epoch TV and Epoch Times family.
We got a great episode in store for you today.
Jan, what are we going to be talking about?
Well, a big thing is these January 6th narratives seem to keep breaking down.
There's the New York Times reporting there were eight confidential human sources.
And we have Christopher Ray testifying in Congress and uh, you know, but kind of lots of questions about this particular testimony.
We've got Republican investigations coming up, what's gonna happen with those committee assignments, or for perhaps for some people, no more committee assignments, a whole lot of stuff today.
Yeah, let's dive in.
So let's start with January 6th.
We suddenly are become aware that there's knowledge of multiple confidential human sources.
I mean, what do you make of this?
So not to say that Epoch Times and Cassius Corner called it first, but we did.
We labeled it the FBI's confidential human source corruption cover-up network.
And we've talked about it extensively in the past, be it Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenkov, Tech Executive Jaffe, and so many others that we've uncovered during the Russiagate scandal during the Durham investigation, during the Sussman prosecution, the Igor Danchenko prosecution, and now, and we questioned it too before.
We said, based on evidence that we found in reporting in journalism with integrity, that there were people like Ray Epps and company there on January 6th on behalf of the FBI.
Fast forward months later, it turns out we were right yet again.
And we have more questions than we do answers today.
So let's, from a former federal prosecutor perspective, let me just give you that lens.
If we're to believe the reporting that there's eight, not one, eight confidential human sources, and possibly even dressed in pro-Trump gear, um, you have to hit a timeout button and say, wait a second.
It's not like the FBI found these people and said on January 5th and said, go forth.
A confidential human source for the Federal Bureau of Investigation requires a minimum of a six-month onboard vetting process.
Then you have to go through the rules and regulations on how to be a confidential human source.
And once all of that happens and the FBI does their own internal verification to approve not just your background, but your relationships and your financial stability and do you have ties to enemies of the United States and things like that?
There's an extensive process there.
We exposed, we being Devin and I when we ran Russiagate, we exposed Christopher Steele's source verification process at the FBI, which at the time was classified but now has been put out.
When the FBI themselves determined Christopher Steele would basically be a terrible source, but they decided to use him anyway because they needed him to cover up their corruption.
Now let's relate that to January 6th.
How do we have eight people there?
And Christopher Ray, we'll get to him in a second, refuse to answer questions about it.
You have to ask yourself, okay, well, that was in planning for at least a year.
What was the FBI doing planning January 6th for a year?
Christopher Ray has testified that the FBI never instigated or helped the January 6th protesters commit crimes.
Then there was a testimony from the FBI and Christopher Ray about January 6th, where he says, we, the FBI had no evidence that January 6th was going to happen.
The two cannot coexist, Jan.
You either have eight confidential human sources who've been working for a year and placing them in specific groups and locations for January 6th, or you don't have evidence that January 6th was going to happen.
Now we have caught Christopher Ray in yet another lie to Congress because these confidential human sources would have been reporting by mandate and the law to the FBI the entire time they were working in these groups and working with these people and working with individuals that were there on January 6th.
You can't just airdrop them in.
So when Christopher Ray told the world that uh the FBI had no quality or no verifiable or credible evidence that January 6th was gonna happen.
That's a complete and total lie.
Because they had placed the FBI confidential human sources there.
Now the millions of questions that follow are who do they place?
Where do they place them?
How do they verify them?
What do they get paid?
And then why is the FBI lying to the world about their involvement in January 6th?
And look, at the end of the day, it could be completely innocent.
You have to always keep that, as a former federal prosecutor, you have to always keep that in mind.
But their track record suggests strongly the opposite of the individuals we've outlined and how they've used their confidential human source corruption cover-up network to do just that.
Cover up the FBI at DOJ's own corruption.
And if it happens yet again, I don't think that this FBI leadership has the ability to stand up in front of Congress and say we can continue to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
And there needs to be some serious change.
One thing that just jumped out at me is this is the New York Times first coming out and you know, not exactly contradicting because, like you mentioned, Ray didn't exactly answer the question and was frankly, you know, I think stopped by the head of the Jan 6 committee in the end from having to answer.
Um, but it's the New York Times publishing there's eight.
And you know, and I asked you before we filmed, basically, so what now you take stock in what the New York Times is publishing?
Right?
No, I don't.
And I think our crowd and our audience knows that.
But what I take stock in is the New York Times has consistently reported over the years about leaks about confidential human sources, about Christopher Steele, about Denchenko, about others consistently when it benefited a narrative for them, or when they wanted to get ahead of a story that was bad for their narrative.
It is almost impossible to believe that the New York Times just went out there and said, we have found out information about eight confidential human sources on January 6th.
No, there's an angle for that.
And that's part of the disinformation campaigns we've uh disentangled over the years on this show.
And remember this, Jan.
Someone unlawfully leaked to the New York Times that there are confidential human sources working for the FBI on investigation X, Y, and Z related to January 6th.
That's an improper leak.
Is anyone investigating that at the DOJ?
Probably not, because again, it cuts against the narrative they want to frame.
And uh for those reasons, I think that you will see come January, hopefully a production of documents related to this to show and answer the questions we put forth about about their involvement.
And you know, you pointed out one interesting thing I wanted to circle back to.
Yeah, Chris Ray refused to answer the questions and basically gave the you know standard cheese government line of if if you're suggesting the FBI had any involvement or instigation in January 6th, that's categorically false.
And we've just outlined why.
Does the FBI have confidential human sources?
Uh did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protesters on January 6th of 2021?
Well, Congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when it comes to the United States.
Even now, because that's what you told us two years ago.
Matt Finish uh about when we do and do not and where we have and have not used confidential human sources.
Uh but to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6th, that's categorically false.
Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January the 6th prior to the doors being opened?
Again, I had to be very careful.
It should be a no.
Can you not tell the American people no?
We did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters position inside the Capitol.
Gentlemen's time has expected.
You should not read anything into my decisions not to share information.
Correct or confidential humanity.
Either you knew through your confidential human source network, which you placed months in advance that January 6th was going on, or you didn't.
But now we know they existed, and now we know you lied.
And unlike in this past incidence of question and answer for Chris Ray, Where the chair saved him.
Come January when the House is led by a Republican majority, I don't think there's going to be a chairman that's going to be cutting off Christopher Ray and saving him from answering that question.
Well, it's also very interesting.
You know, it's in the mandate, if I recall correctly, of the January 6th committee to basically look at what involvement federal agencies had in this whole thing, which, you know, questionably being addressed.
I'm gonna read something that uh uh Stephen McIntyre came up with that's a little bit uh off the beaten path, but very interesting.
I want to see what you think.
Okay, he said, um, while the first instinct of incoming House is to shut down the J6 Committee, House should do exactly the opposite.
McCarthy should state House will continue work of J6 Committee under new leadership.
Also that all documents must remain within the House and all employees remain for continuity.
McCarthy should also assert that all employees of the J6 committee are subject to a continuing duty of confidentiality to the House, that employees are not permitted to impart confidential information to any new employer.
Microsoft would not suck its thumb if its employees walk proprietary documents and technology over to Google, nor should incoming House leadership suck its thumb while the J6 employees walk proprietary documents and knowledge over to Jack Smith.
Wow, that's an interesting take and one I probably, you know, off first blush agree with in at least in in good part.
And that is because I am for the investigation of the January 6th matter to continue properly, not in a partisan hyperbolic fashion, which has been the case when it's been led by, you know, as President Trump refers to commonly as the unselects of January 6th.
And there's so many reasons from my background for my investigative intelligence evidentiary prosecutorial background and public defender background to want it to continue to exist because I think the American public are owed so many answers.
And the major answer they're owed is what were law enforcement's failures, Capitol Police, FBI, DHS, and company on that day.
We haven't had a single witness interviewed publicly that has spoken to that.
We haven't seen a document produced by the January 6th Committee that speaks to that.
So I think you see the intentional misdirection of this current January 6th committee to focus just on one thing, and that is how do we set up President Trump to either be taken out or refer him to DOJ for this insurrection uh narrative that they have created.
And they have done America great disservice in qualifying their investigation before it ever started.
They've also done what I think the Department of Justice a great disservice, but intentionally so by not producing all the materials that are in their possession.
It's the first time, and we talked about this maybe six months ago on the show, that I can ever recall that the DOJ yielded to a congressional investigation and said, we in court, they said this in court, not me.
The Department of Justice said in a federal criminal trial related to the January 6th prosecutions that they are waiting, they DOJ are waiting for the Jan 6 investigation to finish, and they want that investigation to finish first.
I've literally never heard of such a thing, that a legislative investigation took priority and precedent over an executive branch investigation by DOJ.
And there's a reason for that, Jan.
And do you do you think they'll wait all the way through until all investigations, congressional investigations related to J6 will happen?
Well, the Republicans have an opportunity here.
The reason I think, we haven't talked about this, but the reason I think that the January 6th committee is been allowed to steamroll ahead and the DOJ has said we'll take a pause is because the DOJ knows if the January 6th committee releases all of its information,
all of this footage, all of its depositions, all of its documents, then the DOJ is going to own a mountain of exculpatory evidence related to Jan 6 prosecutions that have yet to date been disclosed to any defense counsel representing a Jan 6 related matter.
And to me, as a former public defender and just a guy who likes basic due process in the Constitution, that is wildly offensive and unlawful.
The Department of Justice is taking an active position to prosecute people when they have not fully investigated the case and know there's information out there that might be beneficial to a number of the defendants they are currently prosecuting.
That is about as un-American as it gets.
And what I hope Republicans do on day one is go in there and say, okay, what are all these documents?
Anything that's not classified, it is released immediately to the Department of Justice and to the public.
So that we can at least look at these documents and evidence and information.
And I'm not saying all or most of it's going to be helpful to January 6th defendants, but some of it might be, and that's what the Constitution and due process requires.
And what's going to happen when you have a Brady violation, as we call it, right?
A Brady violation is when the Department of Justice intentionally and recklessly withholds from the defense evidence of innocence or evidence of exculpatory, uh, that's exculpatory in nature.
And some of these people have already been convicted.
So what happens when their defense attorneys go back to court and say, Judge, we found about this witness that the government knew about, but it hid from us.
That's a fundamental Brady violation that should reverse a conviction.
And these judges and prosecutors should want to ensure convictions that are going to stand the test of time.
But they've shown us over and over again.
They don't care about that.
They care about the politicization of DOJ and FBI.
And I think you're going to see some uh glaring Brady violation pleadings by defense counsels if the Republicans make this move.
And as you suggested at the top of this question, you know, should the January 6th committee continue its work?
And I think in a form, I agree with this individual.
Yes, it should, with a different leadership structure and a different mission.
If we find out something, we put it out.
What's the point of a congressional investigation that withholds the information it discovers?
That's like if Devin and I ran the Russia Gate investigation and said, well, we're not going to show you anything.
The purpose of congressional constitutional oversight is accountability to the American people by disclosing the findings of your investigation.
It's the one difference that separates DOJ investigations from congressional investigations.
And this committee has failed to disclose its findings to the American people.
The other aspect of what Stephen McIntyre mentioned that's very interesting is if the January 6th committee is continued in its current form, though under new leadership, Congress can basically bind all the people that are involved in it to not basically leak information to people they may want to leak information to.
For example, this new special counsel, right?
Which is what was his which his point was.
What do you think?
Well, in theory, I think it's a novel idea.
In reality, do you think Adam Schiff's gonna stop leaking material that's con of confidential material to the press so he can get on the Sunday talk shows?
No, not at all.
So I just don't think it works in reality.
I appreciate the sentiment, but the best way to destroy the corruption of this committee's withholding of information is just to put everything out there.
That's the whole point of Congress when it comes to investigations.
Why are you hiding it?
And for this DOJ to actually allow knowingly the suppression of possible Brady information and the like is as egregious of a crime as prosecuting someone without having fully investigated the case.
And that's what they're doing, and that's what they've told judges, and judges have gone along with it.
What should have happened is a delay in those proceedings or demand by Congress from Congress to release these materials with immediacy.
And maybe we'll see that come January with the new leadership.
So that's this is actually very interesting because we're going to be talking about Republican investigations, but this is really, you know, one of the key Republican investigations that we just discussed.
Um, you know, we we outlined three, the top three that you know you believed were were at the top.
Um where do you think stand now?
I still think you know, we've outlined a lot of the DOJ FBI investigations that need to happen, in part with what Christopher Ray, I believe, has been lying about, not even to mention the use of his private government jet, and then he gets caught lying about that to Congress and Senator Hawley.
And then there's so many other things.
There's the search warrant applications, are that we use the FISA court correctly, uh the GN6 prosecutions, confidential human source corruption cover-up network, and then we move to actual investigations that Congress is doing, the Jan 6, but we've outlined the other two that need to happen with the Media C Fauci, all things COVID origins and the vaccine and all the rollout there and the border being the last one.
These are monster investigations independently.
And so a lot of committees are gonna need to focus on that.
And we haven't even talked about Hunter Biden's laptop, which apparently is going to be the focus, and I think rightfully so of one of the committees.
that was just announced this week.
I thought Tom Fitton astutely noted that CBS waited two federal election cycles to admit to the fact that this is a real thing.
Interesting.
Well, CBS, it for its part, and the mainstream media for its part, intentionally did that.
And you know, I saw Jim Jordan say he was going to subpoena the 51 intelligence officials that signed the letter that falsely stated that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russia disinformation.
Had all the hallmarks.
Right.
So they they kind of avoided it a little bit.
Well, listen, that's government cute speak by saying we can we can get our headline out there because the headlines for everybody else was Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation.
The word hallmark didn't appear anywhere.
And what these individuals will hide behind, and but you know what?
It's worth doing.
I think you should subpoena every one of them and haul them in public.
Put them under oath and let them lie.
Let them say, well, we said hallmark, so we didn't really.
So you're saying you, the former CIA director, you, the former Secretary of Defense, you, the former director of the NSA, signed onto a letter, knowing it had false information, and you're out was a cheeky excuse like Hallmark.
Yeah, let's put those people on blast so we never believe them again.
And make sure any letter they sign in the future and any application they have for another government position is thoroughly vetted by the American people.
So I think it's a great start, but it's just that.
It's just the start.
I mean, the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, that that encompasses DOJ, FBI, Intel, Foreign Affairs, you know, was there pay for play, so much other matters that um I think it was Representative Comer who's gonna be likely the chair of the oversight and government reform committee or ogre as we call it.
Um he seems to be um hot to trot on all things on our biden laptop.
There is a kind of blueprint for this investigation, like this giant uh Co Polo investigation that claims, you know, something like 400 instance of illegalities, 400 plus instances of the R. I mean, it's pretty simple, Jan.
Like, you know, for CBS to now come out and say, and I read part of their article, oh, we did a forensic analysis of the laptop.
Oh, okay.
It took you two years to do that.
You chose not to do it two years ago when it would the information was available to you.
You could have talked to individuals like Tony Bobelinski.
He was willing to talk to anyone and everyone about it.
And this is a guy uh who worked in political circles affiliated to the Democratic Party and didn't even vote for Trump.
But they chose this is the intentional disinformation campaigns these people in the fake news media and some of the bureaucrats on the Hill want to put on.
They know the questions not to ask and who not to talk to.
So it doesn't disrupt their narrative.
The FBI are is the experts on that by knowing not what sources not to go to and what questions not to ask and what information not to divulge.
And CBS is running this parallel op.
And now they're what, trying to reclaim their credibility.
You know, I was at Mar-a-Lago uh for President Trump's announcement, and the CBS reporter came up to me and said, Hey, I'd love to uh interview you for you know these ongoing investigations.
And my response to them was basically when you guys start reporting truthfully as it happens, then uh you can call me and I'll give you an interview.
So, you know, you you mentioned one possible head of committee, right?
Committee assignments.
So let's talk a little bit about that.
But then also, you know, uh McCarthy, who looks like he's gonna be the speaker of the House, he's basically saying that there's some people he's not gonna uh allow to be on committee.
Well, let's start there.
You know, uh Kevin McCarthy, who I know and worked with when I was on the Hill, it's likely that he'll become Speaker, has to date kept his promise that he was gonna jettison or remove people who have either violated their oaths or their their duties to Congress or the American people, and Adam Schiff, Eric Swabell, and Ilan Omar, Kevin McCarthy has said he's going to remove them from all committee positions.
And effectively what that means, John is if you're a member of Congress and you can't sit on a committee, you're neutered.
You can participate in the voting process, you can attempt to create legislation unilaterally that is by yourself, but the committees are where all the work is done.
The committees are where all the oversight investigations are done.
The committees Are where all the budgeting process takes place.
And so when you take a chair, and remember Adam Schiff is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a member of the gang of eight.
And you say, not only you're not ranking or chairman, you're off the committee entirely.
And what and what better person to make an example of than the man who's been lying to the American public for the better part of a decade about Russia Gate, about Ukraine impeachment, about Charmella and the whistleblower falsehood that they brought forward and about January 6th, about so many other matters that he's basically said, you've continuously lied for years, you're off the committee.
Swalwell slept with a Chinese spy.
I mean, literally, the man was on the House Intelligence Committee and just hit pause, and I'm not judging the guy for who he has private relationships with, but hit pause and say Republican member on that committee had sexual relations with a Chinese spy.
What would be the political and media outcry if that scenario happened?
We wouldn't even be talking about it.
And then Ilan Omar and her anti-Semitic remarks, you know, have rightfully so put her in the same pool as these other two individuals.
And, you know, I don't think he should stop there.
I think there's others that this needs to happen too.
And let's remind our audience, we didn't start this.
The Democrats are the ones when they were in the majority the last two years who kicked off people, Republicans from their committee assignments.
The Democrats set the rules and the Republicans need to follow through and execute on the same level playing field.
And hopefully we'll see more than just three.
I think three is insufficient.
I think there's more, but it's a start.
What do you think the reaction will be if such high prominent uh Democratic congressional members are removed from committees?
Well, it's interesting because I think from the perspective of like an Adam Schiff or a Swalwell, I firmly believe that these individuals are in Congress to serve their own ego.
And when they're on these committee assignments, they get the big media, as we say, go into the sticks.
They get the big media interviews, they get the big Sunday talk shows, they get the big um assignments from their congressional uh party to say, okay, I'm gonna be the spokesperson for the Russia Gate investigation for Jan 6th for Hunter Biden's laptop for what have you.
Now they're not gonna be able to say any of that.
What are they gonna say?
I'm participating in nothing.
And so that's why I said you've effectively neutered them.
So I think that's gonna be something you see, but you'll of course see the media and the hypocrites in the radical left-wing arm of the media say, oh my god, this is unprecedented, how dare they, the Republicans, kick off these individuals from these committees.
It's never happened before, but as we know it, it's definitely happened before, and it was the Democrats that led that way.
So we need to constantly remind people that it's the rules that are in place that were never used by the Republicans, but the Democrats use them and now the Republicans should as well.
So, Cash, as we finish up, I can't help but think there might be a lot of resistance to getting a lot of the information during these investigations we've been discussing out.
You know, you mentioned this concept of fencing or you know, kind of, you know, defunding or defunding parts.
So how would this actually look?
Yeah, and it's not just applicable to January 6th, a perfect example, but it applies to all the investigations we're talking about, whether Christopher Ray's plane, the use of confidential human sources to cover up FBI corruption and DOJ matters, um, etc.
And we talked about it last week.
We call it fencing the money.
It's a congressional move real quick where you basically um the congressional committees of jurisdiction, so judiciary for FBI and DOJ, Intel for CIA, um, armed services for DoD, et cetera, have the ability to put a imaginary fence, for lack of a better word, around buckets of money that are due to these agencies and departments that they need to operate.
And we did it once uh during Russia Gate, but we didn't do it again because Paul Ryan would not let us do it again.
So hopefully the next speaker of the House gives us authority to his chairmen and women to do uh when they see fit.
And what they do is you put holds on pockets of money, buckets of money, and you say, well, this committee has asked you questions in this letter for documents, for witnesses, for information.
We've given you a congressional subpoena.
You have failed to respond.
You have failed to produce it.
And normally they just, as you've seen Chris Ray do time and time again, is just give Congress a Heisman, or be saved by the Democratic majority currently, and their chairmanship and say, oh, you don't have to answer those questions.
It's okay.
Well, once that changes in January, I believe, And I want every committee to do it is to start putting fences around the monies for these departments and agencies.
And be selective.
Don't put a fence around money related to paying your employees.
I don't think that's entirely fair.
There's so many men and women there doing the job every day.
That's not what I mean.
But do it around projects that these government gangsters, as I call them, care about care so much about more than actually doing the job that they will respond with immediacy.
The perfect example I can think of for DOJ and FBI is it's been going on for a long time that FBI headquarters is going to be moved out of Washington, DC.
And then we've said in the past, I believe FBI headquarters should be disbanded entirely, but that's a separate conversation.
But they're going to move to what's looking like Virginia or Maryland.
And what does that require?
Money.
A lot of it to move an entire law enforcement agency's HQ from one location to another is a multi multi-million dollar taxpayer funded process.
And the first fence that should go up is around the FBI's budget allocated to this move because Chris Ray cares about it so much.
And so does this DOJ.
And it will, I believe, with great effect and speed, cause them to produce this information when Republicans have the majority.
And I think that's just one example, a great example of what can happen.
You can take similar moves.
Look, the Pentagon's not moving, and you know, the CIA is not moving locations, but they have sit they have so many programs related to replacing old fleets of vehicles or upgrading aircraft that people use to get from place to place, or government secretaries, cabinet officials use to travel around the world.
You can lock those monies from being expensed to those uh specific line items until they cooperate.
And that's exactly what needs to happen.
I've been saying it for some time.
I introduced it on this show, that concept, and I hope people educate themselves about fencing the money, and I hope the Republicans act because it's the only thing they will cause a response from these agencies and departments who owe us, the American people, the accountability, especially when it relates to uh the Republican majority exposing corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse at these agencies and departments.
Because the one thing they should never be able to do is basically kick Congress in the face and tell them we're not cooperating with you because you're never gonna do anything to us.
You don't have the ability to do us anything to us.
And that I think leaves a gaping hole in the constitutional congressional oversight that these committees have to play.
Um, and America is owed these answers.
So they should start fencing money.
So for this week's shout-out, everyone, I wanted to wish everybody the most amazing Thanksgiving.
We're incredibly grateful, both at Cassius Corner and at the Epoch Times as a whole, for having you as our audience, for having you on our live chats.
Thank you so very much.
And I just want to compliment that by saying we are so appreciative of the support from the audience for Cassius Corner.
We're so thankful for the amazing epoch times and epoch TV crew and staff for helping us make this a reality every week.
We really hope everybody has a wonderful Thanksgiving, gets to spend some downtime with their family and friends and loved ones, and also watches a whole lot of Cash's Corner.
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.
And just as a final sign-off for today, people keep asking me about these cowboy boots.
So here we are, we got them.
That's right.
We took Jan Cowboy Boots shopping and he got this amazing pair of boots, and I couldn't let him be alone.
So for those of you that don't know what we're talking about, that's because you're not on the live chat.
We have a great live chat room every Friday night on Cash's Corner where thousands of people participate and they wanted to see the cowboy boots.
