Kash Patel: How an Ex-CIA Boss ‘Rigged’ Three Election Cycles, From Benghazi to Russia Collusion to Hunter’s Laptop
Former acting CIA director Michael Morell was recently asked under oath about the origins of the intel letter discrediting the Hunter Biden laptop story as possible Russian disinformation.He testified under oath that a call from now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken “triggered” the creation of the letter, which was signed by 51 current and former members of the intelligence community.When questioned further, he said, “one intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and two, it was [to] help Vice President Biden.”“I wanted [Biden] to win the election,” he testified, according to a letter sent to Blinken by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner.This isn’t the first time this ex-CIA boss has stirred up hot-button issues in the lead-up to a presidential election, according to John Solomon and Nick Givas’s reporting in Just the News. In 2012, he edited official talking points about the deadly 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack to remove references to al-Qaeda. And in the summer of 2016, he was one of the first major figures to publicly claim Trump was a Russian asset in a New York Times op-ed.In this episode of Kash’s Corner, we also take a look at Sen. Chuck Grassley’s recent allegations that the FBI falsely labeled information as Russian disinformation “to bury it”—and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s seeking to prevent Trump from speaking about the evidence in his case.
My goodness, do we ever have a lot to talk about this week?
Well, the big thing I want to talk about is Michael Morale and his recent disclosures under oath.
And I have many questions for you about this.
So this is a big thing.
A little bit, we I think we have to talk about Tucker Carlson leaving Fox.
We'll also talk about Senator Grassley basically coming out and saying that it seems like the FBI has been using this moniker of Russian disinformation to shield the Biden family.
And he hasn't provided any evidence yet, but he's seems to have made good on everything else he's said up to now.
Finally, a little bit on this uh the Manhattan DA brag, basically saying that he wants to restrict some of the evidence from uh you know the Trump side of the the lawsuit.
So I don't know, we got a lot.
We got a bunch, and for a lot of it, it seems all roads would lead back to Russia Gate, but we'll get there.
It it it does seem that way, doesn't it?
Let's let's look at Tucker Carlson.
I mean, this is something everybody's been buzzing about for a few days now.
You have a interesting theory.
Tell me about that.
Well, look, I'm not on the inside, I don't have any inside narrative or take, but I'll just give you my thoughts on it.
Uh these are facts, whether they're coincidence or not, we'll leave for the audience.
But the fact remains that Paul Ryan is on the board of Fox News Corp and one of the largest voices at Fox News Corp.
The CEO is Rupert Murdoch's son Lochlin Murdoch.
And it's no surprise that those two individuals who are in charge of Fox News have a heavy dislike of President Trump.
They've made it, I am not saying that for them.
They've said that publicly.
And I think when you take that fact and you couple it with the coverage that you've seen Fox News undertake in the last year, which has been, in my opinion, a pivot away from all things President Trump.
And another fact that a guy like myself, who was on the Fox Prime Time shows on a near-weekly basis, has not been on a single Fox Primetime show in nine months.
Yes, these could all be little coincidences along the way.
Um, but when you start adding those facts together and you take on the removal of Tucker Carlson, the departure of Dan Bongino, two of the largest voices, um, and whether you want to call them pro-Trump or not, there's probably a better way to characterize them.
Maybe you just look at their audiences who are very uh favorable of President Trump and his re-election status and want to hear news that reflects to that audience base.
And those two shows, specifically Tucker's, we well, it was the largest news show in network news, right?
Why would a news company who's in news to make money rid itself of its number one money-making show?
And I think that there has been for some time at Fox News Corp uh a pivot away from, again, however you want to use the verbiage, Donald Trump, MAGA, America First, what have you, to become a more in their eyes, neutral uh media network.
And I'm not saying it's good or bad.
I'm just saying that when you add up these facts, maybe there are all an entire string of coincidences, but in my opinion, I think they have done it tactitionally from the top, the board and the CEO and others to make these maneuvers.
There's also, it's been uh it's not a secret, it's been public now that a female employee or former employer Fox is suing both Fox News Corp and Tucker independently to abuse and harassment.
Fox, of course, has known about this lawsuit for a long time.
And you know, in government we say there's no such things in coincidences.
In the private sector, there may be.
I'm not the uh, you know, the expert there, but I just take my time in and say a lot of these facts add up to a departure at Fox that um I think points uh in one direction, and that is the pivot that they wanted to make as a news organization in how they cover news going forward.
Well, one thing just comes to mind.
You know, we recently on American Thought Leaders published an interview with your friend and former boss Chris Miller, yeah, who points out uh that Trump has this neo-isolationist approach to foreign policy, right?
And that's definitely something I think that Tucker Carlson shares.
And you know, I don't know.
I've heard I've heard different takes on how pro-Trump Tucker Carlson was.
And I don't haven't watched the show enough to to know that, you know, sort of definitively, but in that area, absolutely.
Yeah, and I don't know Tucker well enough to say what his vision is on Trump specifically.
I was more speaking to his audience.
The three point five million average viewers he gets per night, I think it's a fair analysis to say many, if not the overwhelming majority of that audience is very pro-Trump.
So what are the bigger implications here of someone that you know it's the number one show or the number two show?
I know there's there's some some discussion around that, but anyway, one of the biggest shows on television right now leaving the organization, and I think what is it like a a billion dollar loss as a result in terms of stock value, that's that is somewhat of a reflection of his value.
What does this say about what's happening?
Well, I don't entirely know.
I'm not the uh you know, like the media mogul, but I think it shows you that there's an intentional pivot, what that pivot fully looks like when the rotation is done, I'm not really sure.
I think there's going to be more moves made um over there.
And I ultimately think at the end of the day, they are a media company who in the middle of what's going to be the most consequential election of modern history, the most covered, I mean, the most watched, they are going to have to be all in on its coverage, and maybe that pivot will reverse course sometime down the road.
I just think you've seen enough decision making over there to tell you which direction it's going for now.
Well, let's jump to Michael Morell.
Michael Morrell, who is he?
Most of our audience probably doesn't know, nor should you really, right?
He's a 30, almost 30 year intelligence officer in the intelligence community in the United States government.
During the Obama administration, he rose to the highest ranks of the CIA as acting CIA director, the man in charge of the Incentral Intelligence Agency.
Prior to that, he was the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
So he had risen to two of the most prominent seats in the entire intelligence community.
What's interesting though is the I don't believe they're coincidences, but the three data points that we're going to talk about here that involve specifically Michael Morrell and the elections in the United States of America.
So it it it's amazing that we can go all the way back to Benghazi.
This is something, you know, uh uh a topic that could kind of keeps rearing its head, like it's never been fully settled.
Yeah.
As the deputy director of the CIA, Michael Morrell specifically changed the intelligence presentation about the attacks on the Benghazi consulant, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and remove the verbiage that said Al Qaeda had ties to it, which was the actual intelligence.
That's what was happening.
And then you remember the whole Susan Rice debacle where she went on the world stage and gave a news conference that was largely false.
And she's been attacked for it ever since.
Now, the question is, and it's been posed to Michael Morell back then, this is what, seven, eight, nine years ago.
Why did you change key points of data of intelligence?
You, the deputy director of the CIA, knowing it was going to the White House to be utilized to brief the world, essentially, on what happened when a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi.
You know, one of the most uh horrific attacks in modern U.S. history on Americans.
So I think some of our audience might ask, well, why would he do that?
Why would he take out Al Qaeda?
And any references to that.
Because as you recall, Jan, and maybe some of our audience doesn't, is originally the Benghazi attacks were not styled as a terrorist attack, as it was first reported.
And that's what the Obama administration wanted out there, that it was not a terrorist attack.
Yet the Obama intelligence community had absolute intelligence at the time of the reporting to show it was an Al Qaeda related terrorist attack.
And of course it's now since been investigated, prosecuted to show just that.
So why would he do that is a is a great question, but one that can only be answered tragically in terms of politics, because he wanted to fit a political narrative that the people in charge of the US government wanted out there.
And so he did it.
And he shouldn't have done it.
Well, this what's really fascinating about this is that it you can trace, potentially trace some of politicization of the CIA at the very least, uh, to that time.
Yeah, and it was a very consequential piece of information that would be utilized in an election.
Benghazi was a significant part of that election cycle way back in 2013.
2012.
2012.
So that's uh, I guess we'll call that uh exhibit A. Well, so now let's jump to the 2016 election, right?
And so here he's uh writing op-eds.
Right.
So exhibit B. So now Michael Morrell, best of my recollection, is retired from the U.S. government and writing op-eds, appearing on news shows, as a lot of former senior intelligence officials do, talking about Intel defense, and national security.
And interestingly enough, he has something to say prominently about Donald Trump and whether or not he's a Russian asset.
So just hit pause on that for a second.
At this point in time, I think it's the summer of 2016-ish, if I have my dates right, nobody had actually labeled President Trump a Putin asset.
You know, to do so is a significant step.
It's to say in U.S. Intel speak that a foreign premier of Russia had recruited an American citizen running to be president of the United States and was on the Russian payroll to be an intelligence asset against America.
That's what it means.
Sounds crazy.
Well, the former deputy director and acting CIA director, Michael Morrell, at the time in the summer of 16, was the first one to prominently posit that into the mainstream media cycle before a presidential election.
He literally wrote, it's likely in his experience that Donald Trump was Putin's asset.
And then what happens?
We've seen this narrative before, Jan.
The media comes in, the mainstream media comes in and laps it up, whoever had a dislike for Donald Trump to barrage him with the false headline that Donald Trump was somehow a Russian asset.
So now you have a second interference based on false information by a former high-level intelligence officer to meddle in a presidential election.
And it just happens to be the same Michael Morrell.
That's exhibit B. Well, you know, and exhibit C was this again, John Solomon's, you know, my pretty bombshell reporting from a few days ago that Morrell was, you know, basically a key person in the creation of this uh letter that discredited the Hunter Biden laptop when the New York Post published its findings.
Yeah, it is exhibit C. So it's interesting, Jan, if you look at Exhibit A, B to C, we have interference, meddling all the way to election rigging.
And I think in my opinion, they're essentially they're the same.
It's a distinction without a difference.
I don't think it was ever an escalation on his part.
In his mind, he was doing the exact same thing.
He wanted to influence directly the consequences of an election based on false information he put out there, utilizing his titles or former titles to sound credible in the matter.
So John Solon's great reporting is based on Chairman Jordan's work over in the House of Representatives.
Um he basically was the one who has been leading the charge on the Intel letter.
The 51 intelligence officers, just to remind our audience, including a former CIA director, a former Secretary of Defense, a former NSA director, and other senior intelligence officials, Michael Morrell, signed the letter five days after.
And this is a timeline that a lot of people forget, Jan.
The New York Post put out the story that Hunter Biden's laptop was being utilized to show crimes that Hunter Biden and he and the family had committed, either with Russia, with Ukraine, and other adversaries.
Five days later, this letter, authored by Michael Morrell and 50 other individuals, came out and said that it was it had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
And it was very craftily done because immediately the mainstream media, politico specifically, jumped on it and said what?
What those 51 authors wanted them to do.
That Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.
We've heard it a million and one times ever since that day.
That was the objective, make no mistake about it.
Because these people in Intel space know exactly what they're using and what words they're using and why.
And they know what the mainstream media is going to do once they have a letter that's out there.
So Michael Morrell, you have to ask, what was his involvement in this letter?
And that's what Jim Jordan was getting to the bottom of.
And he found out that Michael Morrell had been contacted by then Biden campaign advisor Tony Blinken, who is now the Secretary of State for Joe Biden.
Michael Morrell came in and testified under oath to the House Judiciary Committee that Jim Jordan is chairing.
And he was specifically asked, he, Michael Morell, was specifically asked by either a member of Congress or staffer, under oath, what triggered you to do the 51 Intel letter, as we call it.
He said Tony Blinken.
So now we have learned that Tony Blinken and Michael Morrell were communicating at the time of the campaign, and Tony Blinken basically gave him one of these, you know, wonderful Washington handshakes, as you call them, to say, oh, hey, I'm not asking you to do this, but you know, it'd be good if we had a narrative out there to run against the New York Post reporting.
So of course Tony Blinken's gonna go out there and say, well, I never asked him to do this, but it's curious, Jan, that you have the former acting Central Intelligence Agency director, Michael Morell, under oath saying it was Tony Blinken who triggered him to author the letter with 51 intelligence officials and to get it out with such speed and alacrity.
Um now I have a whole host of other questions, but staying on Michael Morrell, why did this guy do it not once, not twice, but three times?
Well, Jim Jordan asked him or his staff, asked him under oath, specifically, why did you, Michael Morrell, the former acting CIA director, write this letter, knowing it to be false?
That was another admission.
He knew it was not Russian disinformation.
And he said, because simply he wanted Joe Biden to win.
That is the very definition of election rigging.
And when we talked about it on this show and this great network and so many other media outlets, we were called the conspiracy theorists.
We were called the liars, we were called the libelous defamatory authors.
And it turns out we were always, as we always do, reporting the truth, and Michael Morel has now been exposed.
Now I think there's a separate question we can get to as to why would he all of a sudden just come out and do that?
But before we get there, you know, I have to hammer home for our audience.
What if a prior central intelligence agency director had come out and authored a false narrative against Joe Biden prior to a presidential election?
What would the world say about that?
The exact same thing we're saying about Michael Morrell.
We hear a lot of uh in these testimonials, people saying, well, I don't recall.
You know, we we hear that a lot, and you don't really know whether they recall or not, but mo pretty often you kind of think they might actually recall.
But in this case, he just said it all outright.
And so why?
Why is he doing this now?
It's an interesting question, Jan.
I just want to give our audience two data points.
Remember when James Comey, one of the smartest men, supposedly to ever serve in the US government, came to testify before Congress and said 173 times under oath, he doesn't remember.
I don't believe that for a second.
Neither does the rest of America.
Remember when Anthony Fauci came before Congress and testified under oath?
I think it was like north of 200 times.
I don't remember, or I don't recall.
That's government speak for you're obfuscating the truth and failing to execute your duties as a former or current government official.
And what you said was, why didn't he, Michael Morrell, just do that?
It's an interesting investigatory outlook.
From my perspective, having been a former federal prosecutor, the guy that ran Russiagate, a public defender, I've interrogated thousands of people under oath.
And what you do before you sit that person in the chair and make them swear in is you collect all the documents you can and all the other investigatory material surrounding that individual.
So you know the answer to the question before you even ask it.
And what I, and I don't have an inside track on this one, but what I think happened was the committee probably obtained material, whether there were emails or memorandums from Michael Morrell himself, where he was communicating with Tony Blinken or Others in the media or the people that signed that letter and basically said, I know this is BS, but we just need to do this.
I've been asked by the Biden campaign to do so.
So they had either collected that information and pieced it together, there was a document that said that, or there were other witnesses involved in the creation of that document, the 51 Intel letter, to say, yeah, that's what happened.
So when you when you do an investigation that thoroughly, it's no longer, I don't know, or I can't recall, because it's here's your letter.
Here is your email, here's your memo.
Here's the 15 people that said you were in the room with them and that you said X, Y, and Z. So are they all lying or are you?
And Michael Morrell, like other government officials, isn't dumb.
He does not want to go into Congress and lie under oath and commit a federal felony.
So I think what they did astutely was put him in a position to give the truthful answer, which is what you want government officials and former officials doing, not obfuscating it like Comey and Fauci, but in this instance, they were able to pin him down, as we say and elicit the actual response.
Because had he, again, this is my opinion, had he said otherwise, they could have, as we say, impeached him or just hit him with the truth in another form, whether it's documentary uh evidence or testimonial evidence from other people.
So it would have created more problems for him.
The other thing is you have to consider this, Jan, and people are starting to realize this more and more.
It could be for political reasons.
You know, the reason Michael Morrell was talking to one of Joe Biden's most senior campaign managers in Tony Blinken at the time, was probably because he wanted a job in the Biden administration.
I mean, remember, this is a guy that said he wanted Hillary Clinton to win.
This is the guy that said he wanted Donald Trump to lose.
This is the guy that said he wanted Joe Biden to win, and acted intentionally to achieve those ends.
So people might say, oh no, that was the fleece thing on his mind, but that's just not the case.
With an individual who has a track record of rigging elections with false information and admitting to it now, you have to ask yourself what's on the other end.
And he maybe he wanted to be the permanent CIA director.
Maybe he wanted to be the head of the IC at the Office of Director of National Intelligence.
Why else would he just randomly help Joe Biden?
Could be because he would have been satisfied with just having Trump lose?
but maybe there's more to that transcript, I'm sure there is, that hasn't been released yet.
And what you saw that I think uh Chairman Jordan and Chairman Turner of the Intel Committee issued a joint letter to Secretary Blinken based on Michael Morrell's testimony.
And they said, I think smartly, not you, Secretary Blinken in your capacity as Secretary of State, but you, Tony Blinken, in your capacity as senior advisor to Joe Biden on his presidential campaign.
Why did you have these conversations?
Please produce these documents, what emails did you have?
What memorandum do you have?
Who are you talking to about this?
Who in the media did you go to, and you owe us all this information?
So I think we have a ways to go, but I also think they need to subpoena uh Tony Blinken and see what he has to say about the matter.
Because now you have Michael Morrell's sworn testimony.
Tony Blinken should have to come in and answer these hard questions because you have now, it's not like you have a very pro-Trump anti-Biden figure saying this under oath.
You have a very pro-Biden anti-Trump figure saying this under oath.
So his credibility is augmented in the public sphere automatically.
Because they can't say, oh, you're biased, you love Trump and hate Biden.
It's the complete opposite.
And whether Tony Blinken comes in, I guess will remain to be seen, whether subpoenas are issued, but I think he owes the American public an answer.
Was Tony Lincoln in on helping to rig a presidential election with false information?
Now let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
I don't know what he's going to say.
I don't know the extent of the interrogation that uh Mike Morrell submitted to, because I don't have the entire transcript.
I don't think anybody does.
They think we just have the snippets of it.
So there could be more in there.
And hopefully the committee will release that to the American public.
But, you know, gone are the days where people who say elections are rigged are called the crazy conspirators.
We have concrete evidence in this one episode of our show, Yan, that it happened three times in three election cycles in Modern U.S. presidential history.
And let's just remind people what you mean by election rigging.
Yeah, so it's a very unfortunate, tragic, un-American concept, but simple to define.
There are two people running for an office, and one side goes after the other.
Okay, that's politics.
But what is election rigging?
When you create a completely false narrative, knowing it's false, just to go out there and defeat your opponent, that's election rigging.
That's what happened here.
It's what happened with Michael Morel and Benghazi.
It's what happened with Michael Morrell parroting Trump as a Putin asset, and it's what happened here against uh in the Joe Biden Donald Trump prior election when Michael Morrell falsely defined the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation.
And he admitted it.
And he admitted why.
He wanted Joe Biden to win.
And I just want to add one more thing.
I want to draw an analogy to the whole Hillary Clinton, Christopher Steele dossier election rigging Russia Gate narrative.
Did the Biden campaign use any campaign dollars to facilitate the creation of this 51 Intel letter and its publication?
I hope that's a question the committee asked Michael Morrell and others involved, and I hope they'll be subpoenaing everyone involved in that, including Leon Panetta, and the former Secretary of Defense and the former director of the NSA, who all signed this letter.
I want to know their answers.
Because what are they going to have to do?
This is an interesting sort of juxtaposition.
You already have one of their former colleagues who thinks the exact same way they do politically and has shown his dislike of President Trump publicly.
Are they going to come in and call Michael Morrell a liar and say we signed this letter and it was true and it's still true?
It's going to set up an interesting contradiction when you have cabinet secretaries now forced to answer the question they've been not willing to answer.
So I hope the subpoenas go out fast and quick to the Leon Panetta's and Michael Haydn to the world because they need to answer this question.
Did they knowingly sign on to an intel uh quote-unquote intel letter that they knew is false to rig a presidential election?
Well, so let's jump to, I guess you'd have to call it a related matter, right?
And this is, you know, Senator Grassley basically coming out, um, and he's got a good record on this, saying that he has evidence that the FBI basically labeled evidence as Russian disinformation in order to ostensibly shield the Biden family.
If I understand what Grassley said and Margaret Cleveland's reporting, who's been doing some fantastic work recently, I might dad.
Yeah, so look, Senator Grassley, whether Republican or Democrat has been one of the most ardent supporters of the whistleblower program in congressional constitutional oversight in modern history.
He has a staff dedicated to it, um, some of whom I've worked with, not on this matter, but on others in the past.
And so when he also comes forward, he doesn't have the practice to just say, oh, I think we found something or maybe we got something here.
It's fully baked if Senator Grassley's coming forward and saying we have information from whistleblowers that demonstrate the FBI falsely labeled information during a political campaign as Russian disinformation to achieve a narrative to defeat Donald Trump.
Based on protected whistleblower allegations, I know the FBI falsely labeled that evidence as Russian disinformation to bury it.
Now, that's the short summary at the end of it.
How did he get there?
It's my understanding that through numerous whistleblowers in the FBI, some of them that have been publicly outed and some that maybe not have, uh, the senator has been working meticulously to piece together that information.
And Senator Grassley has asked Chris Ray under oath, um, at least on one occasion, that I can add that I can recall, you know, will there be any retaliation against whistleblowers in the FBI?
And Chris Ray flat out said no.
But as we have seen, there has been retaliation against whistleblowers, whether they were the ones uh Senator Grassley's talking about here or others that relate to events we talked about on prior shows about January 6th and other narratives, domestic violent terrorists or Russian disinformation.
Um, all of these things need to be dealt with, in my opinion, in the public.
Because it's it's great that Senator Grassley has done this investigation.
Now I want to know when those individuals are gonna come forward and testify.
And if that's the case, you know, again, Yan, no coincidences, Chairman Jordan just this week subpoenaed the head of the FBI Human Resources Department.
Because he said she did not comply with her obligations to submit to an interrogation under oath.
She sat down for it, but she refused to answer questions related to FBI employees who were terminated or adverse action was taken against them for providing information to Congress in the form of a whistleblower.
So I think these two things are directly related.
You know, having worked in the United States Congress in an investigatory capacity, you generally always reach out to your counterpart.
If you're a Senate staff, you're reaching out to your counterpart on the Hill on the House side to say, okay, hey, I'm on this intel committee, you're on that intel committee, let's work together.
It's how we did Rushagate.
And I think, I don't know, it's how the Judiciary Committee is talking on the House side to the Judiciary Committee on the Senate side.
So I think there's going to be a point where these come together.
And the reason they need to come together is because in the Senate, the Republicans don't have the majority.
So they don't have the gavels, they don't have the ability to issue subpoenas.
But in the House, they do.
And I think there you're seeing a tandem at play here that I hope to see continue with not just the subpoenaing of this person in charge of Chris Ray's hiring and firing of FBI personnel, but other individuals related to these narratives that are out there because it all relates to the thing we've been talking about, election rigging.
Did the FBI, and this is a whole nother topic for another day, but the question you're asking is did the FBI and its employees undertake a conspiracy to block information, manipulate it and distort it so that it would be put out on the public side to favor a political narrative, even though they knew that information was false.
It seems like they have, time and time again.
And this is one line of effort that Senator Grassley, I think, is exposing, and well, I hope he works faster.
Right.
And I mean it it just highlights this kind of broader issue, right?
You have, of course, Raoul has been singled out as this, as someone who's on record now as doing being engaged in this sort of activity.
But now here's another example uh potentially, you know, we have yet to see, yet to see the details of this in the FBI.
Yeah, and now you you can't say anymore, it's never happened.
It could never happen in the United States of America.
It's not possible.
The agencies and departments of the government don't do that.
Cabinet secretaries wouldn't do that.
Uh the FBI would never.
Well, we've shown time and time again, whether it's Russiagate or anything else from then that unfortunately it has happened too often and it needs to be corrected.
So let's jump to what uh Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is doing uh with this uh Trump case.
Yeah, quick update for audience.
So didn't get much attention this week, but Alvin Bragg, as the prosecutor or his office, filed a motion before the court, the judge that's hearing the Donald Trump uh case.
And what the prosecutor's office is asking for is the essentially the equivalent of almost a gag order of the sorts on Donald Trump.
If you recall, Yan, we said on this show initially when that case was brought that I want the discovery process to play out.
I want to see the evidence that Alvin Bragg has, and I want the public to know what he has built his case on, because I, as a former federal prosecutor, think it is a sham that he's built it on faulty evidence.
And now we're at the point where discovery is supposed to actually get traded.
That means mostly the prosecution is supposed to provide the defense, Donald Trump, with all the evidence.
And he has not yet done so because he's filed this motion saying, well, before we do, judge, we want you to tell Donald Trump that he can't talk about it, that he can't post about it, that he can't publicize it, that he can't go out and give a press conference about it in any way, shape, or form.
That is essentially a gag order on the discovery process.
Why?
Why is he doing That.
To me, there are exceptionally rare cases where that sort of ruling is necessary.
But in this instance, when you have a case of this public importance, literally the most important case going on in the USA right now.
Why wouldn't the prosecuting attorney want his evidence so that everybody can see the case he has brought is a righteous case against an individual who is not only a former president of the United States, but a candidate to be the next president of the United States.
That's what makes this case so exceptional.
It's also for that reason I don't believe the judge should grant that motion.
It makes it seem as if the DA has something to hide.
And it's one of the reasons I came out early and often saying I want all the discovery out there.
It's one of the reasons why I took the rare position saying I don't want a motion to dismiss filed right away.
I want to see the goods.
And this would block us, the American public, who has a right to know what's going on in this case, since we are going to make a determination based on that and a lot of other factors who they should vote on for the next president of the United States.
That information can't be kept from us.
Maybe there's small snippets of information that could harm a person unrelated to the case individually.
Okay, I can I can get on board with that, sure.
But a wholesale blocking order to prevent President Trump from talking about the evidence in any way, I couldn't disagree with that anymore.
So it's curious that he's done that.
It's not surprising, but to me it speaks to the fact that he doesn't want his evidence further examined by the public.
Well, if that was the case, he should have thought about that before indicting a former president of the United States who happens to be running again.
So we'll also see what kind of judge this individual is going to be on this very ruling in short order.
I think he has asked for both sides, the attorneys to come in and litigate, argue the motion, I think this week.
So we should have an answer on it, but it's an interesting update.
So Cash, I for one am really excited to learn in all of these, frankly, investigations, the discovery in the Trump case, Senator Grassley's investigation, and of course, this whole, you know, Jim Jordan's look into uh Morel's testimony and beyond.
I mean, there's there's there's a ton of information we're gonna learn here.
Yeah, you're absolutely right.
I think we've learned a ton, a lot.
We talk a lot a lot about tying themes together, Russian disinformation seems to be one of them.
And I just want to make sure we connect it for our audience.
It's interesting that what Michael Morel was doing with the 51 Intel letter and encapsulating that as Russian disinformation.
Uh, the FBI is using that same theme to encapsulate information about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and his family as Russian disinformation.
It seems to be the theme of the cover-up operation, whether it's a former current senior intelligence official or current FBI officials.
I think there's a lot of investigation that needs to happen.
And Russian disinformation is just become the ultimate boogeyman.
Right?
Yeah.
So we'll stay on top of it all as always, and I'm sure come next week we'll have some more information.
Time for our shout out.
Indeed, it is, Jan.
And this week's shout-out goes to Kathy Bowby.
Thanks so much for commenting on our Cash's Corner quote board, and thanks so much to everybody who participates in our live chats every Friday night in parallel with our show.
