Kash Patel: Here’s How Jim Jordan Can Set Trap to Expose Collusion Between Big Tech and Intelligence Agencies
Recently, the New York Times published a lengthy piece claiming John Durham’s investigation was flawed and “failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.” Subsequently, a number of congressmen have called for Durham and Bill Barr to be investigated. What’s really going on?“They do these preemptive strikes when they know something is about to happen,” says Kash Patel.We also discuss House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) investigation into the federal government’s collusion with big tech to suppress free speech. Jordan recently subpoenaed the CEOs of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft. Patel says Jordan should also send subpoenas in the other direction—to the FBI and DOJ—for all communications, contracts, and agreements with the tech giants.“Once you run those two subpoenas on a parallel track, Jan, then you can get some real documentation and answers for the American people because someone is going to get caught lying,” Patel says.And finally, we take a look at the Chinese spy balloon, the other downed aerial objects, and the train filled with toxic chemicals in Ohio that recently derailed. Are these events connected?
We have a jam-packed episode, and if you can believe it, Jan, this is the last episode of season six.
I cannot believe we have been going so strong for so long.
It's been a great ride, and I can't wait for next season.
But what are we going to talk about today to close it off?
Well, it it is a jam-packed episode.
And I mean, we're gonna have to talk about Russia Gate again because the New York Times came out with this like I'll call it preposterous whitewash of all the work has been that has been done, you know, of course, started by yourself and Devin Nunes to expose what happened with Russia Gate.
Um, and then we have the Columbia Journalism Review coming back and basically doing something that was a direct response to this whitewash in the New York Times.
I didn't expect it.
There's some pretty solid reporting there.
I know you want to comment on this.
Um we've got James Clapper coming in and basically criticizing political for its headline back in the Hunter Biden laptop days when this was all this all came out.
Kind of sh shocking.
I wasn't that's another thing I wasn't expecting.
It wasn't on my bingo card, as people would say.
And I also think we need to talk about this uh uh, you know, the the further adventures of the Chinese spy balloon.
Let's just touch on this New York Times piece.
You know, basically they're saying Durup came up with nothing.
Durham did not find nothing.
What Durham found was the very core of corruption at the intersection of the FBI and the deep state and the media, which is why the media, I believe, is flexing so hard right now to try to knock him out.
Remember, uh Jan, they do these preemptive strikes when they know something is about to happen.
We've covered it before.
Whether it's January 6th, whether it's Russia Gate, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Company always produces anonymous sourcing to say there's a nothing burger.
Remember when Hillary Clinton said the Steel Dossier was a nothing burger and it was produced into the media and then relayed by every single major outlet.
And so I think that's what we're happy what's going on today.
We always, when reporting on Russia Gate or any other scandal, appreciate when an outlet that normally didn't cover it accurately or didn't cover it at all finally comes around.
And I think that's what this review journal has done.
Um they didn't reach out to the likes of Devin Nunes and myself for their extensive deep dive into how Russia Gate unfolded, but putting that aside, I do appreciate the angle they've taken vis-a-vis New York Times and Washington Post.
And specifically, Jan, what they've done is debunk basically line by line and subject by subject, two of the old school institutions in journalism that received Pulitzer prizes for their fake reporting on RussiaGate.
They called him out for the use of anonymous sources, but specifically they called them out for the use of leaks from the FBI to craft fictional narratives so that a political agenda could be achieved by the mainstream media.
Yeah, and this is the biggest point I think people are failing to make.
There is no Russiagate without the mainstream media.
It just doesn't happen.
As we now know from our Russia Gate investigation, the mainstream media's reporting was used to buttress the Steel dossier and the FISA warrant application through the circular reporting process.
What that means is unless the likes of David Korn and Yahoo News write their bogus journalism and submit it back to the FBI and the FBI lies and say, oh, look, not only did we find that Donald Trump and his cronies are Russian assets, but look at the media, they're reporting it.
Because they continuously reported, based on whatever Adam Schiff and Swabell and Company were telling them that Donald Trump was a Russian asset, um, that he had rigged the election and not Hillary Clinton, and that the Republicans had funneled money into these illegal activities, not the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
So it's about time they've sort of been called out on their BS.
It's not that they haven't learned their lesson.
It's just that they refuse to learn their lesson because once they do that, then there can be no more deep State or administrative state or whatever you want to call it.
And as long as Donald Trump is in the media or in the mainstream or running for president, that partnership will never end.
From uh what I've seen, there's even been basically some congressional members have called for some kind of oversight hearings based on this New York Times reporting that came out, if you can imagine.
Yeah, and if they're calling for congressional oversight, they might want to be careful what they asked for.
I would love to see John Durham front and center in front of a congressional inquiry, taking on both Democrats and Republicans, because look, I've known the man for a long time, and I don't know what his politics are.
I've never known him to be political in his prosecutions.
And I think everything he has produced has been meticulously fact-based.
Whether or not he won convictions against Sussman and Denchenko is one thing.
But the foundation of those prosecutions, as we've covered on this show, were buttressed by calling out the FBI by name, agents like Hyde and Strack and company, and other people that we didn't know about, the Charles Dolans of the world, and how he was a source for the FBI and how he assisted not just Stefan Halper and others,
but how the mainstream media, the New York Times and Washington Post and others, came to their aid during this investigation to allow for the DOJ to improperly conduct an investigation into Trump campaign.
So I, for one Jan, would love that.
Well, let's switch gears a little bit and let's talk about James Clapper is basically criticizing Politico now for taking out of context this letter that he and these 51 former intelligence officials signed saying that the Hunter Biden laptop had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.
That's me paraphrasing the term.
Yeah, let's just rewind the tape a little bit because it's been so many years, right, since this reporting came out.
So let's remind our audience who and what was going on.
So Politico had an author, a supposed journalist that's being very kind, called Natasha Bertrand.
So she writes an article based on a letter that 51 former intelligence officials signed.
And Jan, I think it's worth noting who signed this thing.
Leon Panetta, the former Secretary of Defense, Michael Hayden, the former director of the NSA, and the former director of the CIA.
Also, Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, and a slew of other former cabinet secretaries and deputy cabinet secretaries in intelligence and national security roles.
51 people got together, put their reputations on the line, wrote this letter and signed it.
And then Natasha Bertrand and Politico used this letter to weaponize the investigation into Hunter Biden.
And the only thing that they could come up with was well, how do we knock it out in the mainstream media?
And the only way to do that was to call it essentially fake news and label it a Russian conspiracy.
Just like they did with the whole Donald Trump scheme from the 2015-16 campaign.
So they borrowed that sort of mindset and operational approach and applied it to a different subject, the Hunter Biden laptop, right before an election.
So that's the backdrop, right, Jan?
So this article comes out, and if you don't follow it like you and I do, like most Americans don't read the newspaper and watch TV every day.
They might pop in once a week.
You'd see a letter like that, and you'd be like, wow, 51 former intelligence officials, I gotta take their word at it.
These guys have been at it collectively for literally 500 years.
So they might know what they're talking about.
But we knew better back then, and we fought the letter back then.
What's ironic now, of course, as we talked about at the beginning of the episode, is this thing has come full circle.
And like the New York Times and the Washington Post have been called out on by the uh Columbia Journalism Review, the politico article is actually being called out upon by the very signatories of that letter.
The defense now from the likes of James Clapper and Brendan and Leon Panetta and company is oh, Politico, who we submitted the letter to to write this story back then that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.
They, politico, Nasha Bertrand got it wrong.
I mean, I'm trying not to laugh really hard here because these guys who literally, and remember, James Clapper lied under oath to Congress about the Russia Gate scandal and the intelligence that he knew about and when he knew it.
And now he pens this bogus letter with his cronies, and he's now caught lying yet again.
So what does he do?
He doubles down like government gangsters always do.
When they're caught lying, they lie about lying.
So now they're blaming their partners in the mainstream media who they say they actually got it wrong.
None of these people corrected the so-called misconception of the headline for the last two years.
But now that their credibility has been thoroughly destroyed and that reporting has been entirely debunked, uh now they're coming forward and blaming the very media they were in bed with.
So no, I don't give them a hall pass at all, Jan.
So Cash, is it just business as usual for these 51 officials that signed this letter in the first place?
Well, part of the problem, Jan, is these folks leave government to their golden parachutes in the defense industrial complex and their seven-figure advisory roles.
But the only way they are allowed to get and maintain those positions is because they receive a top secret security clearance for life.
Only the government can give that.
And only the government can take it away.
And what I think this government should do is strip each one of these 51 intelligence officials of their security clearances forever.
And while I know the executive branch won't do that, the Congress, which is now at least controlled by the Republicans, the House side, are the ones responsible for funding their security clearances going forward.
And they could strip by line item budgeting the process.
They can take away the security clearances for the folks that we've talked about.
That's something I will call on Congress to do publicly.
I'm actually doing it now for the first time ever.
And I'm not sure they're gonna listen to me.
But while we can't have exact like we can't have the accountability we want from the executive branch and the DOJ to run an investigation, we can and should exact um accountability by stripping away their security clearances because they lied to the American public and the world intentionally.
They got caught, they continue to lie, they should not be able to make money off their lives.
Speaking about congressional oversight, you know, it seems like you know, Jim Jordan, head of uh the House Judiciary Committee has called in many of the heads of the big tech giants to talk about how they worked with the federal government.
I think they have until late March to produce whatever documents there exist or emails that exist of communications around this type of possible censorship, what we found in the Twitter files.
I kind of call this in my own mind, you know, the Twitter files for the other big tech giants.
That's what I think Jim Jordan is looking for.
Um so do you think something will come of this?
So he issued these subpoenas against the guys and gals that are running Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple.
And he excluded Twitter for what you alluded to earlier, and Jim Jordan has come out publicly and said, Well, Twitter has been cooperating through their version of the Twitter files and to expose the weaponization of government.
So these other five have come in.
He's also told them to produce every document.
This is the important part for me, and what we've been asking for for all this time.
Because the testimony to me, Jan, is what I call window dressing.
I'm not really worried about that testimony from those CEOs.
I want the documentation, I want the receipts for the American people.
So they are gonna have to produce all of the documentation that Jim Jordan asked for.
And what he asked for was pretty detailed, but also pretty widespread.
He wants every piece of documentation, email, memorandum, contract, what have you, text message from these and all of the employees at these respective companies back to the federal government, whether it's the FBI DOJ or otherwise,
showing any discussions involving censorship, involving First Amendment speech, involving collaboration between the government agencies and their respective companies regarding what they can and can't put out on their platforms, especially as it relates to pending election matters.
So that is a pretty wide net.
Now, they did give these companies about five-ish weeks to respond.
And I suspect these companies will take all that time and ask for more time.
But what I'm asking Jim Jordan to do now is send a subpoena the other way.
This is how you set the trap, Jon.
It's kind of what we did in RussiaGate.
And what I mean by that is, okay, you've subpoenaed the private sector individuals and the companies and that documentation.
That's step one.
On a parallel track, he needs to be subpoenaing the FBI and DOJ specifically, asking for the same exact information that was sent from the government to the private sector.
But the critical request must come in the following fashion.
That is the contracts, the contracts and agreements that the FBI and DOJ had with every one of the companies we just listed, and how much money, taxpayer money to the tune of millions, was being sent to every one of these companies for the very matter that Jim Jordan is investigating.
The weaponization and censorship between big tech and government.
And once you run those two subpoenas on a parallel track, Jan, then you can get some real documentation and answers for the American people because someone is gonna get caught lying.
Now you know, since there's such a big microscope on these private companies, the FBI and DOJ, they're gonna be very careful as to how they talk to each other so they're not caught collaborating on production uh subsequent to a congressional subpoena.
But I think it's critically important that the FBI and DOJ also be put on notice and also have their former officials and current officials who are responsible for that 80 election member task force out of the FBI and things like that to be subpoenaed.
And then there needs to be a run-of-show, an order of sequence in terms of who goes first and when, and whether these interviews are going to be public or whether they're gonna be private.
And I'm for a combined approach because as a guy who did 70 closed door interrogations, there's a lot of value to sitting down with these individuals for hours on end without a timer.
So you're not obtaining just a five-second news headline, but you're going through the documents, you're placing them under oath, and then you release these transcripts for the American people.
And you do the same exact thing with the FBI.
And then at the end of it all, you invite them back to testify publicly, pursuant to a subpoena, and then you have them under oath, and you can highlight the points that need be shown to the American people so you can say we are not just talking about accountability, we are delivering on it.
It's an extensive process, Jan.
This is the first step.
We'll see if this committee is willing to take the next uh two to three steps we've just outlined here.
Well, a couple of quick thoughts.
Number one is you know, there's a little bit of a head start here uh with the discovery materials from the Missouri versus Biden case.
That's number one.
And number two, and this is something that I know is on a lot of people's minds, you know, in the Twitter files, there's this discussion of this other unnamed agency, which a few people have identified as the CIA being involved.
Uh and is this something that uh you know these hearings may discover?
Yeah, and look, it wouldn't be the first time.
Remember, the CIA was involved in Russia Gate, and they were in direct communication with the FBI.
In fact, Brennan, one of the signatories to the letter, was the director of the CIA, who thought so much of the intelligence that came in that Hillary Clinton was setting up an operation that he went and briefed President Obama while he was still president.
This man's CIA was then later found to have participated in the Russia Gate conspiracy by allowing the Hillary Clinton campaign and Michael Sussman, and we've covered this extensively, to go in there and drop off information and say, look, you have to look at Alpha Bank, which we now known has been totally debut debunked thanks to John Durham and his investigation.
And these were the guys that were also running the fusion GPS scandal into the FBI.
So I don't for one second give the CIA a pass on this entire um review that the weaponization of the government subcommittee uh is doing with Jim Jordan.
So I did just say FBI and DOJ, but we need to include CIA.
That's a great point, Yan, in terms of who they investigate and uh what documentation is brought forward.
Well, so let's shift to the foreign policy sphere here.
And, you know, there's been more reporting on this Chinese spy balloon, and even there's been reporting that has been confirmed now that it was detected as early as the time when it was actually leaving China.
It's so bizarre that this narrative around the Chinese spy balloon keeps evolving into uh more and more.
I I mean I I'm almost wondering what the next revelation will be, you know, in the saga of the balloon.
Well, the truth has a funny way of evolving, Jan, when you hide it, especially when your government hides it.
And let's start at the beginning.
Um, because we didn't have an opportunity to unpack this um during last week's episode because a lot of this information has just come to light.
But as a former chief of staff to DOD and deputy director of national intelligence, I'm pretty familiar with the collection capabilities that the United States government has, both on land, oversea, under sea, and above the skies in space.
And I, for one, have called it since jump that I believe our government detected this balloon once it left mainland China.
There's no way we missed it.
And I think it's gonna come out, um, and we'll talk about the intelligence briefing or lack thereof that uh the Biden administration gave to the Congress.
We'll get there.
But what the Intel committees need to do is subpoena the documentation from the DoD and Intel committee and community requesting all the coverage that focuses on this balloon.
And I think here's what you're gonna find.
We knew about it for however many weeks it takes that balloon to fly across the Pacific and hit the Aleutian Islands.
The next question is why did our government hide it from us?
And more importantly, maybe there was a national security reason to hide it from us, but why didn't they act?
Why didn't they do something before it hit the Aleutian Islands and the territorial waters of the United States?
So that's that is just a reset on the Intel perspective on how we America have the collection capabilities to detect these things.
That's sort of step one.
What's happened since then is of course we've identified all these other objects, whether you want to call them balloons or octagons or whatever they're being called in the mainstream media.
We won't know fully the origination of these objects until they are exploited, as we say in the Intel community, until they are collected, retrieved, and sort of the data and parts are pulled apart and we look into uh the insides of it.
We now know the red balloon had a payload, had a sensor capability, has a signals intelligence capability capability, and it was confirmed that it was the CCP who put this thing together and had maneuverability.
That means it was remote controlled by someone from far away to go to certain places, i.e.
over America's missile silos, farmlands that the CCP was buying, and collection against American personnel directly.
These other instruments, Jan, I don't necessarily believe off the mark that they were going to be found to have been from the C CP.
They could be from another foreign actor.
They could be from a private actor.
We just don't have enough information.
But from the first glance, the sensor payloads that are on these other objects differ quite substantially than the one that we found or we'll be being told about that was on the red balloon uh from from mainland China.
So that's my first indication that there's sort of a little bit of a divergence, a split.
Now it could just mean there's a different intelligence collection capability installed on that platform.
But let's give the Biden administration the benefit of the doubt.
They've already gone to the podium at the White House and said about the other objects, and I'm summarizing.
Basically, there's no there when it comes to the objects over Lake Huron and the other couple of objects we found.
I think it's okay for us to question that based on the credibility or lack thereof of the Biden administration as it relates to these overhead objects.
But one thing that no one's talking about is President Biden went out there and said, without equivocation, we the United States have no overhead collection on mainland China.
And Jan, I hope he's lying.
Because if we the United States, and I'm speaking generally, are not in a position to collect against the CCP, our number one adversary, then we are failing the national security mission of the United States of America.
And so that is a whole nother matter that now needs to be investigated to say, did the Biden administration change the intelligence priorities and the national security mission of this country to just take China and the CCP off the map.
To me, that's the most consequential piece that no one in the media is talking about.
And I hope someone asks President Biden and asked the director of national intelligence and the director of the CIA and the director of the NSA whether or not those capabilities have been pulled down.
Yeah, just on that point, you would think this would be something, you know, there should be a gang of eight briefing on urgently, um, just off the top of my head.
But but one thing I wanted to mention, I think the top general at NORAD, he actually mentioned that these objects, you know, he's not excluding that they could be from further afar than the places you've mentioned.
So you're talking about General Van Herc, who used to work for me when I was chief of staff at DOD.
So just to give our audience a flavor of how DOD breaks apart the world in terms of areas of coverage, um, they they're called combatant commands, and they're based upon geography.
So Northcom, Northern Command, is the command center that the DoD has for the United States of America and all of the geography that is North America.
And also housed within Northcom is this thing you've heard in from movies from the 80s and 90s called NORAD.
It's a big missile defense system operation that nests within Northcom that is a joint mission set between the United States of America and Canada that goes back to the Cold War days to detect missiles and incoming objects from back then, which was the Soviet Union, and we sort of kept it to, you know, watch the skies.
So this guy, Van Herc, who's responsible as the four-star general, the number one officer there, he comes out and I think makes a dangerous statement, and a grossly misleading one, by saying, when asked, can you rule out now paraphrasing, can you, the North Northcom commander, rule out essentially alien participation in these flying objects?
And he said no.
Having been the chief of staff at DOD, a four-star general who is the leader of the combatant command does not make that statement to the international media without that talking point having been approved by the Secretary of Defense and the White House.
So my big takeaway is this was a coordinated statement from our government, the Biden administration, and our national security apparatus to distract away from the bigger issues.
Well, I don't want to say the bigger issues, let's say other major issues that are plaguing the Biden administration right now, i.e.
the Hunter Biden laptop scenario, the Biden classified documents, that matter hasn't been talked about in almost a few weeks, it seems, and the other failures that are going on.
It's also being used as a cover, I believe, to allow the Biden administration to not properly inform Congress, as you said, the gang of eight and otherwise, as to the originations of the red balloon and the other objects and why we failed to detect them, or did we detect them as I believe and lie about it to the world.
This, I think is a terrible day for the United States Department of Defense to allow its top combating general of Northcom to go out there and put out such hyperbole so that people in the media can grasp at it and are talking about aliens instead of talking about how we better protect this nation against the CCP.
You know, I want to pick up on something you mentioned earlier.
There was a briefing that was given uh to a number of senators, and um they weren't happy with it.
Senators and I don't I don't know if it was offered the House yet, Jan, but I know it was offered to just senators at this point, left that briefing and said essentially they were told nothing.
They know no more about the originations of it, they don't know when it was detected, they don't know why it was taken so long for it to be removed or the threat eliminated, as we say, and they don't know anything about the other objects.
So it's essentially what we said.
They went in there into this black hole of a room and were told a couple of things and said, reminded it's all classified, but left with no answers.
That's not oversight, that's not accountability.
That is a executive branch government looking to cover up mistakes and failures on the national security scene, and they're continuing to do so publicly, like the statements that Van Herck's making out of Northcom, publicly, like the statements they're making from the podium at the White House through the press secretaries,
and privately when they're going to be brief members of Congress, and we have heard Zero commentary, Democrats or Republicans, John, that they appreciated the details of the briefing.
In fact, we heard quite the opposite, both Democrats and Republicans saying we know less than we knew when we walked into the room.
Cash, as you're speaking here, and as we're finishing up our you know, season six here, I can't help but think there's so much going on.
You know, there's it almost feels like chaos, information overload.
On top of everything else we've talked about, there's this major toxic spill in Ohio, right?
Which again, there's questions about how effective the federal government has been at dealing with it, residents are not happy.
Um and all of this is kind of happening at the same time, and no one knows really what to make of it.
Yeah, and to me, Jan, I'll leave the discussions about the failures of the transportation secretary off for another day.
And I think what I'd like to focus on is how I believe the CCP and other foreign actors are attacking us on a multi-pronged line of effort approach.
And what I mean by that, Jan, is for my time in government, one of our biggest critical failures in the United States of America has been to upgrade our electrical grid system and what we call our switch system.
And essentially that provides power from one coast to the other.
And it's been something that we wanted to harden during the Trump administration, and we tried to do it.
But it's a it's not like a four-year lift.
It's like a 20-year lift.
And when I see things like the railroad disaster in Ohio, and I don't see statements from the railroads themselves or FEMA or otherwise to direct us immediately to what was the cause of it, i.e., a broken railroad tie or a disjointed piece of track or a human error.
Um, you know, the timing is we've talked about in the show before, Jan.
And I'm not saying it's an outright, you know, jumping to the outright conspiracy, but I do want to alert people to the fact that the CCP doesn't operate on a singular plane.
That is, they don't say, how do we mess with America one singular way for this entire month and not do anything else?
What they're masters at is both intrusions and distractions and propaganda.
And we've covered the latter two.
The first one, the intrusion part, is they're some of the best at cyber intrusions into American network infrastructure, not just governments, but private companies, including those electrical grid systems that I was talking about in the switches.
So did a foreign actor hack into one of these while we were so preoccupied looking up in the sky with this uh CCP balloon fiasco that we missed um hardening our infrastructure to detect and prevent and stop these infiltrations?
I think so.
I it's happened in the past, and we it took us months and months and months to detect it, and then it took us even more months to let the American public know about it, as we've seen occur.
So I want Congress to investigate whether or not the priorities of this administration when it comes to detection and prevention of our hardened infrastructure systems has been a priority.
I just haven't heard that it has been one.
And I've heard of these cyber attacks that have been going on.
And here's another thing, Jan.
We did this during the Trump administration.
When there were these types of intrusions, we expelled the diplomats from Russia.
We reduced the amount of diplomats from mainland China.
This administration has taken no such steps.
This CC balloon was caught flying and detecting and infiltrating American land space, American machinery, and American people.
And this administration from a diplomatic standpoint almost sent the Secretary of State over there the next day, and hasn't expelled a single Chinese diplomat.
That's how you take action to show the American public you're serious about the situation.
All the actions that the Biden administration has taken uh pursuant to the CCP balloon has been one of obfuscation, deflection, cover-up, and sadly, uh that leads only to one thing, which is the failure of the American national security mission.
Cash, this is a Very interesting analysis.
Of course, the CCP, as you're saying, is an expert at this asymmetrical or hybrid warfare, using basically all means at once to wage what we've described in a recent documentary as their final war, right?
Basically to overtake America as their premier world power.
I think you're absolutely right.
I think we should be looking in those places where no one's looking as we're focused on this suite of issues that we're seeing all at the same time.
Yeah, look, Jan, I think we cover it, you know, all of season six.
We always touch on national security, defense, and intelligence.
And one of the common threads that's uh been a theme for us has been the CCP and its operations against America, also Russia, also Iran and other state actors, bad actors who want to threaten harm to America and sort of place themselves above America on the international stage.
So hopefully we'll see more actions from this Congress to steer America back towards uh superiority in those lines of efforts to safeguard our nation.
But uh we're just gonna have to wait and see.
But either way, Jan, when we come back for season seven, you know we'll be dissecting whatever measures have been taken and more importantly, what measures have not been taken.
Well, Cash, as we finish up season six here, it's time for our shout out.
You're right, Jan.
It is time for our shout out.
And before I get to it, I just want to thank the entire Epoch staff and crew and team for putting on such amazing shows throughout season six and all of the seasons, for going on the road with us and for working with our demanding schedules.
They are really the best in the business.
So I can't thank you all enough for that.
And I do want to give a shout out this week to Paul Hansen.
Thanks so much for your lovely note on our comments board.
I also want to extend a shout-out to Jan, our live chat.
It has been more than lively during season six.
It's been built up into quite a raucous and lovely debate stage.
I enjoy it thoroughly.
I know you do too, Jan.
So we hope the entire audience tells everyone about the live chats on Friday night that accompany uh every episode of Cash's Corner.
And as we wrap up season six, we will, of course, be back for season seven in a few weeks.
