Kash’s Corner: Obfuscation and Lies, From the Pentagon Intel Leak to the Whitewashing of the Afghanistan Exit Debacle
Why is the FBI targeting churches? Who approved the memos singling out Catholic churches and associating terms like “red pill” and “based” with domestic violent extremism?How did classified intelligence on Ukraine end up spreading online for weeks without being detected?And what does Kash Patel—as the person in charge of the Defense Department’s transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration—make of National Security Council spokesman John Kirby saying recently the Trump administration was not forthcoming when it came to plans for the Afghanistan withdrawal?We discuss all this and more in this week’s episode of Kash’s Corner.
This week we are going to dive into all things Intel, classified leaks, and so much more.
Jan, where should we kick it off?
Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
We've got, of course, these leaks, and it's really unclear at this point.
You know, is this actual intelligence?
Is it legit?
People don't know.
People say it's altered.
We're gonna find out a little more from what you think.
A big thing is this after action report that the Pentagon put out and some of the things that the NSC spokesperson John Kirby was saying don't comport with some things we've actually said on the show.
So we definitely need to look at that.
And finally, the FBI is targeting Catholics.
Really?
Um, terms like based and red-pilled.
We got to talk about that.
So let's start with these, you know, so-called classified documents from the Pentagon related to the Russia-Ukraine war.
There's you know, ostensibly things like troop positions on their weapons deployments, all sorts of stuff.
And you know, we're not getting a lot of information about whether this is legit or not or what what its significance is.
The reporting that we're seeing now, we're talking about very sensitive collect.
We're talking about troop and operational planning in the Ukraine.
We're talking about intelligence as it relates to China and Russia and the Ukraine.
And we're talking about Massad, literally the Israeli version of the CIA.
This is some of our most sensitive intelligence.
Why do I define it as such?
Because classified intelligence comes in a number of forms, and as it gets smaller and smaller towards the top, meaning the more sensitive it gets, the less people that have access to it.
So this disclosure of classified information, which I believe is unlawful, only could have come from a certain few people.
But you mentioned that it was a leak, and I want to come back to that.
If it was a leak, that means it was an inside job by some US government employee or contractor to work with or just disclose it to a media agency of some sort, whether it's a newspaper or an online web-based platform, right?
That's illegal, it's a felony, and it's a terrible day for US national security.
Here's something that's scarier.
As bad and as unlawful as a leak of classified information is, what if it was an intrusion?
What if Russia, China, some other actors found a way to tunnel into our classified system and pluck this information out?
Let me throw you another scenario.
What if it was an intrusion by an activist?
What do I mean by that?
Someone, either U.S. government employee or private citizen, acquired this information and disclosed it to the entities they knew would promulgate that information on a wide-scale platform.
But I believe based on the tradecraft and the type of information and the disclosure process here, it is not just a leak of classified information, but it's more likely that it's an activist disclosure combined with the possibility of a foreign intrusion or private intrusion by a bad actor.
That's Julian Assange.
My question to many of those people out there who called for Julius Assange to essentially be pardoned to say yes, he committed egregious felonies in the United States of America by disclosing information.
Remember, it's not that WikiLeaks was the entity.
We don't know all the details publicly, but it's not that WikiLeaks, as it was publicly reported, was the entity that got it, like meaning they mined in there and got it, but they combined with partners and received this information.
This is a type of intrusion activist programming that I'm talking about.
So he was the one that put it out there and he's never disclosed how that happened, as far as I'm aware.
So all the people that said give him a hall pass, get out of jail free card, literally.
Are you gonna call for that same scenario here?
Because that's what essentially is happening.
I don't believe Julian Assange should receive a pardon or get out of jail free card.
I believe he broke the law, and there is a disastrous consequence to releasing classified information in the fashion that he did.
This is no different.
And people will also compare it back to the Snowden thing, which is a similar trade craft operation, but Snowden was an actual NSA contractor, but if you recall, his goal was to get that information out there.
He that was his intention.
He did that and then fled, right?
Fled to Hong Kong and then eventually found asylum in Russia.
Do this, is this bad actor?
Is that what they want to do?
Because then you know their intent.
Their intent is to forget the law and say we want this information out there, legal consequences aside, and we don't care the harm that it does to American national security.
That's my biggest problem with all these three sets of scenarios.
Now, we don't have enough information to make that determination, but it doesn't look like this was just some random disclosure to a media outlet by a disgruntled U.S. government employee.
It just doesn't seem that way to me.
So it's not the traditional leak in that sense.
And I think when the US government figures this one out, it's going to take some time.
I think we'll see a lot of parallel to the Julian Assange WikiLeaks and even some of it to the Snowden portion of it.
But my bigger problem, actually, if you can possibly have one in this scenario, is the United States government's response to this or lack thereof.
The response being I think it was the NSC spokesperson John Kirby who said, you know, we don't really know much about it, we're looking into it.
Which is shocking.
He he, John Kirby, the National Security Spokesperson, who has zero credibility in my book, um, and will uh elaborate why once we get to the Afghan withdrawal and the lies he was saying about that.
He comes to the the largest podium in the world, he was asked, is essentially has the leak been contained.
I don't know.
That was his response.
That's scary, we don't know uh who's responsible for this, and we don't know if uh they have more that uh they they intend uh to post.
So we're watching this and monitoring it as best we can.
But the truth and the honest answer to your question is we don't know.
And is that a matter of concern to us?
You're darn right it is.
You don't know if it's contained.
What have you been doing?
What has the response been?
I think they've known this for a while.
They were not able to contain it, they haven't figured out its root origin, and now they're chasing a media narrative to exonerate themselves instead of chasing the actual criminals that were involved in this type of disclosure and leak operation.
And that's what's most frustrating to me, putting aside the information.
Now let's get to the intelligence itself, right?
And we don't have access to it, we just have access to whatever is publicly reported.
Here's something that people haven't pieced together, I think, on Ukraine.
If the information disclosed is accurate, we'll get to the piece about it being altered in a second.
But if you take the information as presented on the Ukraine, reminding our audience that the United States has spent upwards of 110 billion dollars in the Ukraine, and the campaign from a media communications perspective has been that it has been succeeding.
The money, the armaments, the weaponry, the training that the United States government has provided to the Ukrainian government, has been succeeding to defeat Vladimir Putin's invasion of the Ukraine.
Not according to these documents.
These are U.S. intelligence documents that say their strategic policy in the Ukraine is essentially failing.
When you juxtaposition that hard intelligence versus what the White House has been telling us, somebody's lying.
Now, we have said on our show why we think that just committing money to an effort in the Ukraine is failing for a number of reasons.
Lack of accountability on where the money goes is one of those.
But now we have U.S.-based intelligence assessment and reporting saying what we're doing is not working.
The Biden administration hasn't addressed that.
And no one from John Kirby or anyone else has said, oh, that intelligence is wrong.
We believe we're still winning.
Because I think they have a monstrous problem now.
They have been caught, in my opinion, lying to the world about what successes, if any, we've had in the Ukraine.
And all the while, they've had intelligence from the United States intelligence community saying the opposite.
It's not like nobody read that.
As we talked about earlier, that reporting probably made its way into the presidential daily briefing over to the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the Office of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, NSA.
All of that reporting is read by those folks.
And then they advise the president.
So how could they have that reporting in hand one and then on the other hand lie to the world about what's going on in Ukraine?
This I think has the possibility of big A of being, if you can call it one of Joe Biden's largest disasters when it comes to American national security, because how they've handled it so far.
I want to go back to Assange and Snowden for a moment.
Okay.
Many people would argue, and I think there's a case to be made for for this, that Americans are better off knowing, for example, the surveillance that is being done upon them, which was being denied at the time, right, by the by the security state, so to speak.
And the reason I'm thinking about this, right, is that what you're describing, you're saying you're taking this these disclosures on the face, you're assuming as if they're true and everything you're talking about.
And the implication though is that Americans are also better off for knowing purely through this sort of you know classified leak of this information, right?
But yet we yet you're arguing against it, kind of vehemently against it at the same time.
So it explain this to me here.
Yeah, there's that's that's a pivotal distinction.
I have always said back when I was heading up the Russia Gate investigation on through my career, that the intelligence community and the classification process can never be utilized to cover up corruption or hide unlawful government actions.
But it but it often is, as we've learned.
And as we've learned, it often is.
But as we've learned, when I ran the Russiagate investigation and we figured that out in short order about the abuses at the FISA court, about the unlawful funneling of money from a political party, about the hijacking of the FBI, about operatives in the FBI, employees, agents and counselors and lawyers abusing the system.
I didn't go out to the podium or I didn't say, hey, let's leak this.
There's a there's a right way to do it.
And we did it the right way.
We followed the steps, and I know that people in the public are didn't disagree with this and say, no, you should have done it quicker, you should have done it faster.
Look at what Shift did.
What Shift did is completely, in my opinion, unlawful and unethical.
And there's a way to get these abuses, these corrupt actors out from within the government.
Snowden could have easily become a whistleblower.
It's how we get good, credible, verifiable information.
Look at the recent history of FBI whistleblowers.
And we're going to talk about some of that when in a minute when we talk about the FBI's what I think is unlawful targeting.
So I just think there's if you're going to be a U.S. government employee entrusted with this type of information, and you sign on to those programs to say we have to defend this nation, you can't then go out on one hand and say, okay, I've got discovered corruption, I want the easy way out, I'm going to give it to the media.
In my opinion, that's just not the way to do it.
And a lot of people will disagree with me.
I think we collectively agreed with the endpoint that when you have corruption, when you have U.S. government employees breaking the law, when you have unlawful targeting, when you have unlawful dis leaks and disclosures, it needs to be vigorously investigated and prosecuted.
I think everyone agrees with that.
But I think the how we get there is where people disagree, and I will always follow on fall on the side of I don't want to, it might not be the easy way out, and just because I was right, it's not about me and I and being right.
It's about having a credible position to prove what you are saying.
And I think if you take Russia Yate, instead of just leaking it to the media, which at the time all that information was still classified, we are in a much stronger position later, years on down the road, for having followed the process and the law to disclose that information to the American public in a lawful legal matter.
Because now we are not being attacked for saying those guys broke the law just to get you the intelligence they are doing what Snowden and Julian Assange did.
If government actors started doing that, then a large portion of the National Security Apparatus would literally implode because they would be serving their self-interest versus the oath of office they took to execute.
You're basically saying we can't break the system to save the system.
That's a better way of saying it, yeah.
Yeah.
But that that that's very interesting.
And there's also, you know, in, of course, you know, most likely the information that Snowden had with them was given directly to possibly multiple foreign adversaries based on this travel plan and so forth, which is obviously would be highly problematic.
So, no, that very interesting perspective.
Well, and and and that leads to a great other point.
We haven't talked about the propaganda campaign.
Remember, we said it's been reported that some of these documents might be altered, and the White House has even made such states like, oh, there might have been photographs and it was altered.
That's that's a red herring.
Who cares if it was altered?
That's what China and Russia do every day.
Their propaganda machines are the largest in the world.
They take our intelligence any way they can get it and then distort it for their gain, whether it's in the Ukraine or Taiwan and the South China Sea, or on conversion of the petrodollar to the Petro UN or anything globally that benefits the CCP and Russia and hurts America.
So I don't believe that you're going the White House is going to sway the American public by saying the documents were altered.
Of course they were.
And so I just I think it's a red herring from the White House to say, oh, it might have been bogus.
Here's the bottom line.
If it was bogus, Yon, everybody in the United States government would have come out and said so because that's their job with definitive authority.
Of course, you know whether those documents are yours or not.
They're out there on the internet.
You literally pull the number on the document and you put it in the gonculator and you say, where is this report?
And then you get the guy that wrote the report and you say, Is this your report?
Yes, sir, it is.
Okay.
Really easy.
It's not that hard to figure out.
It is if you want to bury corruption.
And I think that's what they're doing here.
They want to create a false narrative, and I think that only further hurts Americans' belief in the national security system.
That's why there's so many people out there agreeing with what you posited earlier.
Let's just have everyone put it out there on their own.
It gives that side credence, and it's because of these government actors abusing the system.
So, well, how is it that the FBI is looking at Catholic churches?
How is it that terms like based and red pilled have made it their way into uh FBI training manuals?
Like what's going on?
Well, we were just talking about intelligence, and it's a great segue into this into this piece because it's supposed to be based on intelligence.
But tragically, we now have a two-tier system of justice in this case.
We've talked about it extensively on the show.
We've talked about the manipulation of intelligence by Chris Ray's FBI in the past to falsely go after domestic violent extremists because they were Trump supporters, like when Chris Ray went to Congress and lied about it.
The problem we have here is not just that it's not based on intelligence, but that it's based on a political orientation.
It got so far as to enter the FBI training manual.
That means FBI agents in the field are told this is essentially the Bible for law enforcement.
This is how you conduct your duty every day.
That means some Intel analyst and FBI agent and others got together, typed this up, and said, We the FBI are going to train our agents to go after Christians in houses of worship.
Okay, why?
What piece of intelligence did you produce to say that blanket statement?
I don't know how many churches there are in America, but it's got to be a lot, Jan.
So you're going to now go in there and embed sources to collect on Christians.
If there's a particular Christian committing a crime that you have evidence on, okay.
Sure, I get that.
But you've just given blanket authority to surveil an entire group based on a religious belief.
I have a huge problem with that because it's not supported by the intelligence.
Here's a bigger problem.
In order for that product, we call it a product, but that written report that was created by an FBI agent and intel analysts and all their teams out in the field.
I think it was a Richmond field office, um, to actually make its way into a training manual, that means it has to be approved by a supervisory special agent, by the assistant special agent in charge, by the special agent in charge, the SAC, and by Washington, DC's behemoth headquarters project.
They have a direct chain of command.
Here's the one thing you can count on the FBI to do.
And it's how we undid their corruption in Russia Gate.
They have a chain of command that they never remove themselves from unless they want to supersede a case like the Hillary Clinton email investigation in Russia Gate.
But you can count on that chain of command, like we did in Russia Gate to get the underlying documentation.
So all these people signed off on it along the way.
It's not like some rogue agent went out there and said, let me just send this email out, and you boys in the field, you now have to go chase down houses of worship.
So when Chris Ray and the FBI and they put out a recent statement on this, say they've rejected it since, of course they've rejected it.
The problem is that it got through.
It got through the field offices and Washington headquarters because people approved it.
And what Congress should be asking is who approved it and how far up the chain it goes and did Chris Ray.
And something like this has to hit the director's desk.
You're going to embed sources paid for by U.S. government taxpayer dollars into Christian houses of worship because what?
And if Chris Ray doesn't know, that's an even bigger problem.
That his chain of command is failing him on advising him on the most important new investigatory tactics his field level agents are supposed to execute.
It's largely problematic.
And there's going to be a massive uproar in congressional hearings and subpoenas.
I think Jim Jordan already subpoenaed Chris Ray for the underlying documentation, like I just requested.
And it's going to be an interesting day when he testifies hopefully in the near future.
Well, the thing that immediately strikes me, Cash, is there appears to be an inordinate focus on the FBI on issues of dubious importance based on their response to this, you know, this information being unearthed.
And so we've discussed this on the show earlier that you know where your focus is, it also talks about where your focus isn't.
And that's very concerning.
That's a critical uh analysis of what we're talking about.
You only have so many agents and manpower to put against a target.
If the FBI field manual has been changed to target people of worship, you know what they're not targeting?
Illegal classified leaks of information, improper disclosures, foreign intrusions through a cyber campaign to tunnel into our classified system, how that information is being spread out around the world to attack the United States of America and its national security interests.
Because you decided at the FBI that it was more important to falsely surveillance or people of work, uh people of faith based on no actual information whatsoever and set an entire agency on course A when they should be on the course for the truth and prosecuting actual criminals.
So it's a it's a key piece that most everyone forgets to realize.
It's not like we have an infinite number of everything.
This is seems to be a priority shift by the FBI.
Cash, so what about these terms?
And this is, you know, I've heard you use the word base before.
I've certainly used the term red pill multiple times in my life.
Um, how how do these things end up in an lexicon of extremisms?
In the FBI.
Yeah, look, as a former federal prosecutor, I understand that sometimes certain verbiage lends itself to augment a particular investigation, especially when I was doing terrorism work, but that doesn't mean you come out there and train an entire cadre of FBI agents to say, oh, if you hear this, it's criminal, you need to open an investigation.
I mean, don't take my word for it, right?
The FBI has now admitted, along with this field training manual that's since been rescinded that other terminology, not just what your faith-based uh belief system is, but actual verbiage just describing generically something is a way to target people criminally, according to the FBI.
And the FBI added to their field training manual the terms based and red-pilled along along with a few others.
And those terms are somewhat common in the, for lack of a better definition, Trump world MAGA movement community.
But that doesn't mean it means what the FBI says.
I'm just gonna jump in.
Not just the Trump and MAGA Movement community.
I I've heard these terms from all sorts of people who are not particularly even sympathetic towards MAGA or anything like that.
I agree.
And that's a great point.
But what but the FBI is saying it's the reason we're using this verbiage is because it follows in their heads whoever is subscribed to Donald Trump's ideology.
And a further problem is the FBI defined the word based.
And I just want to use this as an example.
This isn't my definition.
This is what the FBI wrote.
Based in the FBI training manual is quote, someone who has been converted to racist ideology, end quote.
That's what it means to be based, according to the FBI.
So not only I I hope that is also rescinded.
Actually, I don't know the status of it.
I would love to know who wrote that definition.
Again, field-level operatives and agents, lawyers at the FBI look at it, the supervisory chain of command authorizes it, and then it's implemented in the FBI training manual.
That's how it gets there.
Is this shows that the FBI has continued under Chris Reid's leadership to target people based on faith, now based on common everyday verbiage that they want to falsely ascribe to a certain section of the American public because they want our justification, a false one, to target them?
That's ultimately at the end of the end of the day, why these training manual adjustments were approved.
They're looking for justification, a hook to get in there and then commit more corruption, like they did when they unlawfully surveilled me when I was a House Intelligence Committee senior staffer.
Because they had training manuals and people in the chain of command all the way up to the director of the FBI and DOJ who has to sign off on the FBI training manual, because remember, the FBI director reports to the Department of Justice.
All of these people must be held to account.
And what are they going to come around and say, oh, we didn't know about it?
That's even worse, Jan.
Then your subordinates are committing essentially criminal activities to falsely target Americans, and you have no idea that's going on.
Congress has a lot of work to do on this matter, and I hope they take it up.
Well, let's shift gears quickly because we've still got a bit to cover.
I mean, on a number of shows in the past, we've covered this issue of the transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration, the DoD transition, you were obviously very deeply involved in that.
And I remember you telling me that there was a whole kind of plan for withdrawal that you passed on in the midst of that transition to the Biden administration.
Um I was actually at the White House uh listening to uh NSC spokesperson John Kirby say a number of times uh during a talk where he said we didn't get anything of this nature from and this is me paraphrasing not exact words, obviously, but so uh these two views don't square with each other at all.
Yeah, and as it we've always done, they definitely don't.
The the tragic victim of this all is America and global security, all for the benefit of the White House's uh dishonest talking points.
As chief of staff at DOD, by regulation, I was in charge of the DOD transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration.
That doesn't mean I did the work.
I was the leader of it on paper, and thankfully we had career officials throughout the department engaging and executing that transition process.
We executed the largest transition in DOD history.
Just think about that.
During the heights of COVID, we gave the Biden administration more access to DOD employees than ever before.
We gave them more access to programs, documents, intelligence, classified matters than ever before.
And we let them come in and sit in our building with whoever they wanted.
That's the no-fail mission of the Department of Defense.
And I'll remind our audience that transition can't happen unless the Trump White House ordered it to happen, which it did.
And just just very briefly, how did you quantify that this was the biggest or the most access or uh so I wrote an op-ed and we can put a link up to it, but in terms of number of employees that were given access to the incoming Biden administration, number of documents and intelligence cables that were handed over and provided to them, everything from submarine warfare to what We're building next to Afghanistan, China, Russia, Intel, all that was produced to them in a systematic fashion through the transition process.
And the big question, of course, is Afghanistan, because this after action report, uh, or at least the way John Kirby portrayed it.
A lot of this information just simply wasn't passed down.
Well, look, I'll leave it for our audience to decide who's telling the truth and who's lying.
And John Kirby is the one who, as we talked about earlier, said he doesn't know whether the leak that we talked about is contained.
So when he was specifically asked about Afghanistan at the White House, John Kirby said, quote, I just did not see the chaos, end quote.
The spokesman for the president of the United States did not see the chaos in the Afghan withdrawal.
He didn't see the scores of Afghan citizens plunging thousands of feet to their death from our C-17 transport planes.
He didn't see the seven children that were drone struck by the Biden administration.
He didn't see the 13 American soldiers that were blown up because the Biden administration relinquished control of Bagram Airfield and its detention center and let out the very suicide bomber that would murder our American soldiers.
He didn't see the chaos in any of that.
And then he has the gall to come to the podium and say the Afghan withdrawal is essentially the Trump administration's fault because we didn't engage.
Just to be clear here, I do believe he did talk about the the 13th service members that were killed and that this was a tragedy.
He said that, but he said he didn't see the chaos in it as my point.
And if that's the loss of American soldiers' lives isn't chaotic in wartime or an exfiltration operation, then I don't think that man should be speaking to any interest regarding American national security.
And for him to go out and say we weren't given anything, let me give you two concrete examples.
The Secretary of Defense, Chris Miller, called incoming Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
He sent a one-word text message response.
Chris offered him uninhibited access to him, the office of the Secretary of Defense, to come in any time and meet with him to hand off documents and do what have you, they refused.
I called my counterpart, the incoming chief of staff, and I said the same thing.
We are here for you.
Our staff, our team will be readily available to you, whatever you want, whenever you want it.
Instead, they took it upon themselves to leak to the media that we weren't transitioning to them and their teams.
We didn't pay any of that any mind.
We said the no-fail mission is what matters.
If those two individuals and their immediate senior staff doesn't want to come in, it doesn't mean we aren't going to have the joint chiefs of staff visit with the incoming Biden administration.
It doesn't mean that Office of Secretary of Defense employees aren't going to meet with the incoming senior leadership team.
It doesn't mean that the sections in the Department of Defense responsible for Afghanistan warfare, special forces, etc.
are going to meet with their counterparts and the incoming Biden administration.
We made sure all of that happened.
Is there one page that says this is what you do in Afghanistan?
Of course not.
That's absurd.
There is a myriad of work when it comes to intelligence, when it comes to weaponry, when it comes to logistics, the reason the Department of Defense has the largest operation for logistics in the world is because it's the largest company in the world.
Moving manning and equipment out of a theater of war is a massive lift.
I mean, you're talking about moving the largest planes on Earth in and out of theater of war to ex-ville Americans, Afghan citizens, and others, along with equipment and machinery, et cetera.
Just think about the logistics of doing one plane load.
We did hundreds.
So all of this was being transitioned over to the Biden administration.
And the key example I want to give on this John Kirby statement is I think the whole world knows we told them you have to keep Bagram.
And you have to transition based on intelligence.
And we told them one more thing.
There can be no timeline.
You can't have an artificial I'm out on this date.
It has to be intelligence-based, like we were doing.
And we told I told them, when it when you come in, you can call this the Biden withdrawal plan.
I don't care.
It's a no-fail mission for the United States Department of Defense.
We can't mess this up.
And instead, their senior leadership team was too busy terminating my employees on maternity and paternity leave instead of paying attention to this information.
So if they didn't read it, that's on them.
But they're lying when they say we didn't provide voluminous Information on how to continue the intelligence-based withdrawal that Donald Trump had orders to us to conduct out of Afghanistan.
And that the Bagram detention center was relinquished and that the suicide bomber came out of the Bagram Center detention center and blew up our soldiers is the most tragic and unfortunate example, but one that has to be showcased here because I think it highlights the credibility issues this White House is having when they make such statements like that.
And I don't care what they say about me, and I know Chris doesn't care about what they say about him or or other of our senior leadership teams, because the mission was too important to fail, and they failed.
And now they are taking a the media playbook narrative that they fall back on when we expose either their corruption or their misgivings or missteps in national security and are saying, blame Trump, or just lie your way through it.
And I believe, just to connect the end of the show here with the top of the show, they are lying their way through the disclosure of intelligence information that was classified from the DOD and other programs, and we are going to have to stay on them, and Congress is going to have to act if we're going to get answers.
You know, one thing that was quite interesting in uh what John Kirby was saying uh was that you know there's been a lot of discussion about all this equipment that was left in Afghanistan.
What uh John Kirby said was basically that this equipment had all been transitioned to the Afghans already.
So this was already Afghan equipment.
It's not U.S. equipment anymore.
That was the he reiterated that.
I mean, there so look, there's paperwork and documentation on it.
That the Biden administration made the intentional decision to leave it there.
That was not our decision, nor was it our recommendation.
Certain small pieces of equipment that no longer served a purpose were at the end of their shelf life, could have been destroyed or blown up in country.
Certain small pieces of equipment were given to the Afghans.
But we certainly did not leave whatever you believe the number is 50, 60, 70 billion dollars worth of equipment there and just transition it over to the Afghans because they don't know how to operate and maintain so much of that machinery.
And if you believe John Kirby's statement that you just cited, why don't you call the Russians and the Chinese and ask them about the all of the machinery they've taken that was American military equipment out of Afghanistan and exploited it for their personal use?
They weren't stealing it from the Afghans, they were taking it because we left it there, and they found a an advantage that they could have over American DOD activities.
So it's it's a terrible sequence of events for this White House from a national security perspective.
And the one thing that you always want any White House to succeed in is national security.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
I've been cheering for Joe Biden as our commander-in-chief to succeed on a national security mission.
It's a no-fail mission.
But when you have his representatives and senior leadership team lying about classified disclosures and leaks, having a corrupt two-tier system of justice and unlawful targeting based on faith-based motives or verbiage, and when you have them lying about Afghanistan, the most consequential theater of war we've had in modern American history, their credibility is shot, and we can't believe anything they say anymore, and that doesn't help America.
The Department of Defense and the National Security Council did not immediately respond to our requests for comment.
Well, Cash, I think it's time for our shout out.
It is indeed, Jan.
And this week's shout-out goes to Patrick H. who is a regular participant and viewer of Cash's Corner, our live chat, and the commentary board.
