“The information—and the bulleted information specifically in that email—is information, in my opinion, that could only have come from a classified source and a classified document …Where did this email come from? Hunter Biden’s laptop. This document has been known to the FBI for years,” said Kash Patel.Was there classified information on Hunter Biden’s laptop? Was this the true origin of the investigation into Joe Biden’s classified documents?Kash’s Corner looks at recent reporting by New York Post journalist Miranda Devine. And discusses the recent indictment of ex-FBI official Charles McGonigal, a key player in the Russiagate scandal. He was indicted for aiding sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Notably, Deripaska had previously hired Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous, discredited “Steele dossier.” Tonight, Patel connects the dots and breaks down what he sees going on.
So Jan, what are we going to talk about and where would you like to start?
So we got to look back at the Biden classified docs.
This seems to be something that just is continuing going on.
There's a Rehoboth Beach that's come into play here.
This is something we want to discuss.
We're going to talk about it's about the one-year anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war.
I think we need to look at that and the U.S. contribution to that, so to speak.
And uh finally, uh something I've wanted to talk about for a few weeks, the DoD mandate.
The D DOD basically removing the vaccine mandate, but from what we're hearing, uh perhaps not at West Point.
You know, we've done episodes extensively from my time as chief of staff at DOD, Warp Speed, the Rollout.
Um, I think what you're we want to talk about today is something we were very proud of then and I think still are today.
We never made the vaccine mandatory for anyone in the Department of Defense or anywhere else in the United States government.
It was an option.
And when the Biden administration came to power, they immediately reversed course and said, if you want to serve in our armed forces in uniform or as a civilian, you have to take a vaccine.
That's three million employees.
The Department of Defense is the largest company on planet Earth, if you want to put it in that sort of perspective.
And so that caused a big uproar.
The bigger uproar, the biggest offense to me was not only were they forcing people to decide between serving this country or taking a vaccine that was contradictory to their faith or their convictions or what have you.
They removed people, active duty soldiers and active duty service members who were in the military for 5, 10, 15, 20 years.
And they took away their pay because they refused.
And we've seen over the years, it goes through the court process, and we've known the entire time that that move by the Biden administration was effectively unconstitutional.
Now the courts have held so.
Now the Biden administration has finally lifted this mandate.
And so I think it's a step in the right direction.
For me, the better thing would be how are you gonna make all these folks whole?
That you kicked out of the military or that you suspended without pay.
And you when you suspend someone in the military, remove them, the military operates on an ordered ranking system of structure.
What does that mean?
It means there's a chain of command.
People get into the military to move up through that chain of command.
And when you're removed, when when you're taken out of that chain of command for whatever six months a year, you know, you lose the positioning you would have had had you stayed.
And it's not like these soldiers and service members did something bad, like get court-martialed because they committed a crime to remove themselves.
They were pulled out by this government, our government, uh, based on this base effectively unconstitutional mandate.
So how they are gonna resolve that is something I'm very interested in.
And are they, and in my opinion, they must give all these soldiers back pay and restore them to the position they would have been in had they not been suspended unlawfully.
So there's still a lot of work left for the Biden administration to do.
Um this is thousands of people.
Yeah, it's not like five five guys.
Yeah.
This is you're right, out of three three million is a big number, but it's thousands of people who've served who signed up to serve the mission of the national security of the United States of America.
So we'll see.
I don't I don't have a lot of faith in this administration providing for and prioritizing our men and women in uniform and our civilian uh soldiers, uh, so to speak.
So we'll see.
Well, a couple of things.
So, first of all, there are these reports from uh John Solomon's outfit, just the news, that West Point has actually reinstated this travel mandate.
Yeah, and that's problematic right off the bat.
They say they're removing the mandate, then one of the four service academies, as we call them, um, West Point, the one for the Army, is saying you can't be a cadet at West Point unless you effectively take the mandate.
Now, we're still working through the verbiage that's in there, but that's the that's the outcome.
They'll of course have some sort of out saying, oh, you could probably attend, but if you do, you can't participate in all these training Exercises, meaning you can't get your training, education, you can't actually go through the programs and become a graduate of the West Point Academy.
Um, that's my guess as to what some of their they'll come back and say, oh, you guys are you guys are not reporting that accurately.
You can you can come to West Point, but if you can come and not do anything, then there's no point in going.
And so that's very disturbing.
It's in my opinion, completely unconstitutional.
So Congress has also been mulling over some kind of legislation that would help get these service members back.
So that's what Well, it would have to be an act of Congress, because you're gonna tell you you're talking about money that needs to be dispersed and spent and the budgeting operations of this country originate and must start in the House of Representatives, go to the Senate, pass both chambers, go to the president's desk.
It's not like the president can by fiat just print money and say we're going to issue these funds.
There's pots of money he can pool, pull from, excuse me, um, depending on the scenario and executive orders he implements, but I think this one has to originate in the Congress.
And I just hope Congress prioritizes it.
Well, Congress has been prioritizing uh funding Ukraine.
Yeah.
Right?
That basically the US contribution to Ukraine, which has been, I think, to the tune of something like 110 billion dollars at last count.
And it's we're about one year in.
What is your take on where we're at?
What the contribution is, is it reasonable?
Um, and is this leading to some kind of greater conflict, which is what I'm increasingly hearing uh people say.
Yeah, it's one of the biggest issues from a national security perspective that's currently impacting America.
And I think the decision-making process has been politicized, and many people on in Congress are putting their politics ahead of what America should be doing to protect itself and its citizens, and then also what we should be doing to help others overseas.
I've said repeatedly over and over uh when I go around the country and talk, America is the greatest nation in the world, and we are many times in a position to help other countries, which we do on a routine basis.
That's what makes us the United States of America.
At the same time, my biggest problem, and maybe because it's my background, is printing money we don't have when we haven't taken care of our people and our major national security issues at home.
So when the Biden administration came into power, we get we handed off a very robust national security apparatus.
I think it was the best national security apparatus in modern history.
I mean, we've talked about it on our show, how we wiped out terrorists, how we brought home hostage, how we secured the border, how we strapped uh the drug traffickers, the human traffickers, the sex traffickers, how we took on Iran, Russia, China, the CCP, etc.
That was a lot of work we pulled, and we handed it off, and the Biden administration essentially said, okay, we're gonna do the opposite.
And tragically, it's hurt America, and I've been proven right.
And you can just look at the border, you can just look at the drug trade, you can look at the sex trafficking trade, you can look at Iran and Russia and China treat us now.
You can look at the situation in the Ukraine.
There is now another world, another sector of the world that's in a war.
Are we gonna get there?
I'll get back to that.
But I have a major problem with us issuing 110 billion plus dollars, printing it and sending it to the Ukraine, and it's not because I don't want them to get assistance, but it's because all of these other issues at home have not been addressed or have been intentionally ignored.
I think finally, because we've been making such a fuss about it, people are now starting to ask the question, where's our money going?
And I've analogized this too.
The Ukraine is going to become the modern day Afghanistan.
Like Afghanistan, the Ukraine does not have a superior banking system.
Why does that matter?
It's not like we wire money over to the you know Ukrainian national banks and then they disperse it throughout their government, and then we can track where all those wires go.
Same problem we had in Afghanistan.
We were literally dropping off tons of cash, and then we had this big rallying call years into the Afghan war to say where is this money actually going that we're giving aid to the Afghan government?
And when we started to track it, we found out it went to the Taliban, it went to the Al Qaeda's and other terrorist organizations out there.
Not good.
We have no method of tracking the money we are sending to Ukraine as of right now.
We are relying on the word of Zelensky and the people that he has placed in power.
I have a massive problem with that.
American taxpayers should have a huge problem with that, and the United States government should have a Problem with that.
I mean, in what world is it okay to send one person a hundred billion dollars and just say, okay, let us know how it goes.
That's what I mean when they say they've politicized the process for a narrative that they want printed in the media and to fly, you know, Ukrainian flags in America as if some sort of victory that we're helping this country.
And I just disagree with that fundamental premise.
The victory would be helping that country in a smart, calculated way, where we, Congress, through Congress, have oversight of those funds, so we know we are not funding the deaths of innocent civilians.
So we know we are not funding terrorist groups.
So we know we are not giving money to the Ukrainian government to spend on arms from Russia and China.
People might think, oh, that's crazy talk, but that's what happened in Afghanistan.
Our money was being utilized against us, against American service members and against our allies there, literally.
And I'm afraid that's where we're heading right now.
And we haven't even gotten to the other things we've given the Ukraine.
This is just pure cash that we're talking about right now.
So I've asked this Congress to be to investigate where has this money gone.
The American people are owed that answer because it's our money.
It's our taxpayer.
And there's a lot of really good reason to be concerned because you know, you the Ukraine was known as a, you know, place for corruption, a place for money laundering.
Yeah.
It's not like we sent a billion dollars, as if that was even a small number to begin with, right?
We've sent a hundred times that to one country.
I don't know how this Congress is allowed to get away with it.
And Zelensky is out there, he went on the world stage and said Russia fired a rocket into Poland, which would literally be an act of war.
Well, it turned out that Russia fired no such rocket.
It turned out that the Ukraine, the rocket came from the Ukraine and was fired into Poland.
And it was it was a mistake, basically.
If Zelensky's gonna go out there and beg the world for more money and more money and come to the US and sit in the well of our Congress and say we want more money, and then call and demand the new Speaker of the House provide more and more money and call Mitch McConnell and say we need more and more machinery.
He needs to be more prepared about global statements that bring us to the precipice of war than doing what he did last fall with this missile attack or this missile launch, I should say.
And we just can't have full faith and trust by giving a leader a hundred billion dollars and having him say, I'm not telling you where the money went.
So another thing we've talked about on the show is the weaponry that uh is being sent to Ukraine.
And, you know, sort of one of the suggestions was, you know, make sure that it's you know, weaponry that the Ukrainians know how to use, because that reduces the direct involvement of people, for example, like the US military.
Um, but especially with these new tank deployments, it seems like this is a very different course of action being taken.
It's a it's been a very different course.
The unique thing about American weaponry is that only Americans know how to use it.
It's one of the national security features that goes along with our index what our in-defense industrial complex produces.
And let's talk about the defense industrial complex for a second, because I think they are the biggest problem in the swamp.
More so than Congress, more so than the lobbyists, and more so than the fake news media and the law firms that surround Washington, D.C. Why do I say that?
Because they, the defense industrial complex, acts as the overlords to many members of Congress in both the House and the Senate.
They are their biggest campaign donors, they are their biggest employers in many, many, many, many, many states.
And I know this from the fact of the position that I used to be in as chief of staff at DOD, passing a 750 billion dollar defense budget, knowing where all of that money was allocated to and what it was supposed to be used for.
I've literally seen billions of dollars worth of defense industrial complex burn up before my eyes because of failed uh production or making a faulty product or not doing their homework properly.
We're not implementing a program for the national security defense of this country appropriately, and we keep lighting money on fire.
Syncing the defense industrial complex to Congress and now the Ukraine.
We started Sending surface to air missiles, SAMS to the Ukraine.
And then we started sending missile batteries, defense missile battery systems.
We have sent seven years worth of surface to air missile defense systems to the Ukraine.
What does that mean?
It means if the companies in the defense industrial complex who make the SAMS were to produce them for seven more years, that's how long it would take for us, America, to be made whole again of what we gave to the Ukraine.
That's just one system.
Then we gave them batteries.
Now we're giving them M1A1 Abrams tanks.
And for those that don't know, those are like the massively wide tanks with the humongous bazooka turret that you see in the movies.
It's not a tank, as Joe Biden said, that is for defense posturing purposes.
That is a tank made for war.
So let's group these together now.
Okay, what does this mean?
Everybody's saying, great, we're giving the Ukrainians all of this weaponry.
Okay, who's gonna operate that?
Are you just gonna go over there and take them off the C 17 and give them the keys to the tank and the laptop that runs the battery system and say, here you go, Ukraine?
Because that would be an even dumber move than not educating the Ukrainians on how to operate that machinery.
They don't have that training.
It's not like we go around the world and give it to everyone, because we don't want the world to know how our uh defense apparatus works.
It's part of the national security of our country.
That's not to say we don't share it with others on many different systems and programs, but when you're talking very specific weaponry that we have made and designed and built and trademarked and patented in the United States of America for our defense, now who's gonna do it?
It's like no one's having this conversation.
Who's going to the Ukraine and training these soldiers?
Maintenance.
This style of equipment requires a heavy duty cycle of maintenance, day in and day out for years on end.
It's not like you can just drop it off and say, okay, this thing's gonna run for the next 10 years.
You just have to turn it on.
So where are these maintenance parts coming from?
What about the technicians?
It's not like the Ukraine has the ability to keep up our systems.
They're not trained on them.
And so that means more.
This is the tragic part about all of it.
And it's it to go to your question about where we gone.
You know, in my opinion, as I've said before, we will see conventional U.S. forces on the ground in the Ukraine.
I've said it two years ago that it would be two years, so I think it's another maybe about a year from now that we'll see that.
And that means America will have all but it we will have engaged in another foreign land war.
I think we're already there.
I think this is the US government being too cute by half by saying, we're just sending money, we're just sending tanks, we're just sending ammo, we're just sending battery systems, we're just sending SAMS, we're not sending people, so we're not in a war with the Ukraine.
Well, what happens with all that equipment?
If you fast forward to Afghanistan, 20 years down the road, we just gave away all that equipment because the Biden administration didn't want to bring it back.
And you know who took it?
Russia and China.
Are we setting up the Ukraine to be another modern day Afghanistan?
I think so.
This is exactly the roadmap that was taken into Afghanistan by our government for two decades.
And it led to the death of over 5,000 American soldiers and two trillion in treasure spent there, and a disastrous withdrawal that has left Afghanistan on the precipice of going into another self-inflicted implosion, fighting factions between the Afghan government, Taliban, and Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
I'm less worried about terrorists in the Ukraine, but I still am just as worried about a global conflict, a global war that involves our American soldiers.
And I just don't see how all these people in the Senate who say it's our moral duty to go out and fund this fight for the Ukraine.
I just couldn't disagree more.
It's our moral duty to protect American interest if you're the United States Congress and you've been sent there by the American people to do just that.
Um I don't know exactly where it's going, but unfortunately, this is where I see it going because these steps that have been taken are almost identical to the steps we took that got us into Afghanistan for so long.
Um, and it's not like this Congress is gonna turn around and say, okay, that's it, every week or every other week we hear about another billion going over there, or another two billion going over there, or another program going over there, another system set going over there.
These things can't just travel in a vacuum.
People have to go With both the money and the machinery.
And our people are going over there.
It's just a question of when is it going to be a uniform soldier?
So then there's still this question what happens if one of these people on the ground, Americans that are doing the support work, for example, for the Abrams tanks, um, gets killed by a strike, a Russian strike, for example.
What is that?
What does that mean?
From our definition, that's an act of war against the United States of America when you kill a uniform soldier.
You know, what happens when an aid worker dies?
Like we lost so many in Afghanistan.
What happens when charities start going into the Ukraine, American charities, and people get start get taken hostage?
Um what happens when contractors, like we've seen already, American, non-military, former military who are over there in the fight, get killed.
You know, those questions have not been answered, and Congress hasn't even prepared the American public to take that questioning on.
It's as if they don't want to address that just now because they know that that is the eventuality that is coming, that they have taken the steps to lead us right to that eventuality.
And I don't have any faith in the Biden administration to keep us out of this conflict because they are making a decision based on politics that is politically popular to support the Ukraine at all cost.
And I just find it completely ironic that this rallying call is being led by the Democrats and a lot of rhinos, for lack of a better term.
All the people that used to be against war in the first place, are now the champions of the Ukraine and taking the procedural steps that we took in Afghanistan that led us into a 20-year war.
One last question on this topic.
Um you started by talking about the defense industrial complex and you know how significant it is in terms of donations to Congress and lobbying and so forth.
So what do you see as its role in all of this?
Look, I'll be the first to say the defense industrial complex is providing an invaluable service to the defense of this country because it is required for private industry to come in and build the things we need fighter jets, missile defense systems, ammunition, guns, helmets, everything you can think of.
It's not like the U.S. government produces that stuff.
We work with them and use their technology and then they provide us invaluable services.
I'm saying the defense industrial complex has gotten too big and has become such a behemoth that it has become a large-scale political operation.
I know this because as my first day at DOD, I called the CEOs of the five, the, as we call them the big five in the defense and industrial complex.
Four of them called me back, one didn't.
And I said, Look, I want to work together on ways of eliminating wasting billions of American taxpayer dollars if it's not necessary.
And to their credit, most of them agree.
They said, Yeah, we could cut some programs.
We could be smarter on how we spend this money and that pocket of money or whatever we were legislated.
And but that's a massive overhaul.
That that requires you to have two what we call under-secretaries related to the defense industrial complex for research and analysis, and then there's another position over there that take them on.
And instead of saying to the defense industrial complex, what do you need?
We say as a government, you're getting X, and we need you to perform this duty for us at this cost, not at a blank check.
And the reason the defense budget keeps ballooning and ballooning and ballooning is not just because of the Ukraine, but because the defense industrial complex, who's building all these machinery that we talked about, are saying, hey, you just gave away all our stuff.
If you want us to rebuild it, pay us more money.
And it's just a vicious circle, I think, that is been allowed to operate in Washington, D.C., and people need to realize what the defense industrial complex does that's good and what we can do to cap it and oversee it from a congressional standpoint and allow a much smarter expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
Cash in a future episode, we'll have to talk about you know, the sort of the US posture vis-a-vis Ukraine and the US posture vis-a-vis Taiwan.
I think there's some interesting discussion to be had there.
There is.
So let's talk about the Biden classified documents and uh this, you know, we're hope that beach search.
We've talked extensively about how the Hunter Biden investigation has led to what I believe is a launch pad for the Joe Biden classified document investigation.
And I think we are being proven right week in and week out.
My bigger problem is not that they have they, the DOJ and FBI have corruptly hid the origins of the investigation.
My bigger problem is that they have created a two-tier system of justice which continues to be put on full display.
We've seen what?
Four locations, five locations that classified documents have been found that Biden owned or leased or had office space at, or however you want to couch it, going back some 20 years.
But we've talked about it briefly.
We are literally allowing the DOJ and FBI saying, you, the suspect, Joe Biden, because that's what he is, he is a suspect of a criminal investigation.
You can work privately with your attorneys through us to create a completely different system of justice as it applies to you.
I as I just don't understand the logic behind that.
And what I mean is take the Rohobath Beach House.
We have said before Congress should be subpoenaing every document in every location that Joe Biden has ever stayed in or had an office in.
But DOJ and FBI should have been doing the same very same thing.
This Rehobith Beach House search is a warrantless search.
They did not go get a warrant.
Remember, if you want to compare it to, say, oh, I don't know, Mar-a-Lago, where they went and got a WhatsApp warrant and then took a SWAT team and raided it, I guess by the time this episode airs on Friday, they'll be doing the SWAT team raid at the Rohoboth Beat House.
Of course I'm being facetious.
That is never going to happen.
But the fact that it's never going to happen should highlight the biggest problem that I'm attempting to portray for our audience.
How is it that a criminal suspect is allowed to go to the Rohoboth Beach House two weeks ago on vacation?
And I'm talking about Joe Biden and his family, while he was a criminal suspect in a classified document investigation, when the FBI had already searched the Biden Penn Center, his office and home in Delaware.
And why hadn't they gone out and already searched for Hoboth and why had they let Joe Biden go to Rehoboth?
It's like letting the bank robber go to every bank he's going to rob ahead of time, and then you're like, okay, well, we'll come in after you and you guys tell us what we should be looking for.
The bigger problem, Jan, is if you can believe this, and we'll put up the note for our audience.
It's now come out that Biden's personal attorneys back in November had an agreement with the Department of Justice's National Security Division, where I used to work to keep the matter quiet before the midterm elections.
How is that acceptable?
And you continuously have Merrick Garland coming to the podium and saying, we are prosecuting without fear or favor.
We are doing this based on the traditions and principles of the Department of Justice.
I find that extremely hypocritical and unbelievably infuriating because you are literally lying to the American public every time you say that.
What traditions and principles at the DOJ allow for a criminal suspect to dictate how that investigation is going to be performed?
Where are the grand jury subpoenas?
Where are the warrants?
There is no tradition and principles at DOJ that allow the DOJ to operate like this.
It's only the weaponization, the politicization of the DOJ and FBI.
So we've discussed on the show that Congress needs to play its role here.
But it seems like there's some roadblocks in that.
Yes.
And we knew these roadblocks were going to happen.
You know, when I was running Russia Gate for the House Intel Committee under then Chairman Nunes, we face similar roadblocks.
And so one of two things is going to happen.
Either Congress is going to bend the knee and just have a paper fight for the next two years, which is going to be completely meaningless and totally waste.
Or they're going to step up, like we did during Russia Gate.
And I believe so far they've done it methodically.
Unlike the last Congress, which was led by the Democrats, where they went straight to subpoenas on whatever committee, Jan 6th or otherwise, Jim Jordan and company have said they've called people, they've said, here's letters.
We're writing formally to you.
We are informing the public of the scope of our investigation, what we want, why we want it, please provide it by X date.
They have now had the letters responded to.
We'll put one up for from the DOJ just as an example.
And now we're at that stalemate.
Okay, who's gonna give?
This DOJ and FBI certainly are willing to drag out the fight.
Is Congress willing to buck them by using the levers in Congress that they can.
We've talked about the inherent contempt of Congress powers, but in order to get there, you have to issue subpoenas.
That's when it comes into play.
And Jim Jordan has done it appropriately where he said to certain witnesses, if you do not come forth, we will use compulsory process to mandate your presence in production.
That's the subpoena process.
So these things are out there.
So this is not like an answer we we're we have to wait months for.
We're going to have an answer in like a week or two.
The question is we now know DOJ's position.
They have said again in this letter which is in my opinion full of meaningless hot air they have said the traditions and principles to Jim Jordan, the traditions and principles of DOJ prevent us from providing you with the requested information relating to special counsel Hear's investigation and the Biden document classified scandal et cetera et cetera.
There's no law in the United States of America that prohibits the disclosure of material to Congress from the Department of Justice just because there's an ongoing investigation.
That is a made up fiction that DOJ has translated to traditions and principles.
I don't know who is allowing that form of police power to go into effect in America but I think it's hurting our overall law enforcement ability and not just in the national criminal space that we're talking about here but for everyday Americans everybody knows that's just not how law enforcement works.
If the cops think there's a crime somewhere they call the prosecutors they get warrants they go do a search they go to a raid if necessary they put people in grand juries they issue subpoenas they get documents and if it's important enough they share that information with Congress because Congress is a separate but equal branch of government not subservient to DOJ that has a constitutional mandate to oversee the actions of DOJ and FBI.
So we are now at basically the intersection of this fight and let's see what Jim Jordan does let's see what Kevin McCarthy does.
Remember the one lever we talked about that they haven't pulled in a long time which is fencing their money.
When you take pockets of money from the FBI and DOJ and say it's a it's a version of the thing that's been called the Holman rule that's been out there for a while instead of taking all their money I'm not saying or never and I and I never argue that you should take all operational funds of FBI and DOJ there's lots of pockets of money you can take that will force them to produce documents like they did for us in RussiaGate when we pulled that lever one time.
But that takes congressional leadership that's got to come from the speaker's office and the chairmans of the select committees etc have to be willing to do that.
Are they going to do that?
Because we now know DOJ's position in the sand they're not providing anything.
And when they finally do show up to testify they being Garland and Ray and by the way another point every member of the DOJ and FBI teams that have touched this investigation must be subpoenaed.
Not just the leadership and we can't hide behind this tradition and principle of you have to be a so-called SES or higher every GS 10 11 12 13 14 5 every employee that is involved in this what I call criminal cover up must be brought before the Congress and there's again no law in America that says they can't my concern is and I've said this publicly when I speak around the country for me though Joe Biden's the target of a criminal investigation he's not the target.
The target for me is the administrative state the actors in the U.S. government at the FBI DOJ the IC the DOD et cetera that are working to undercut our legal system because they have created a whole new set of rules to apply to Hunter Biden or to Joe Biden.
I want to fix that and the only way to fix that is to expose the corruption the only way to do that is to produce the documents themselves to the American people and to put the witnesses themselves on TV on national broadcast under oath asking questions without time limits about every single investigation we are talking about here and why those steps were taken and I think you're going to see it is a giant paper tiger that will implode upon itself if this Congress takes the necessary steps to do so.
Sounds like there'll be a lot of testimony if this actually happens that it'll play out I guess we'll see.
Yeah a lot of testimony a lot of production but you know what that means we'll have a lot to talk about.
