Kash’s Corner: The DC Handshake Coverup and the Hunter Biden Scandal
“I believe Hunter Biden will be charged, and soon, but I think they’ll roll it up into what we call this global plea agreement, where he basically gets charged with some Mickey Mouse lower-level offenses, walks into a super light sentence, and then they will cover up the cover-up,” says Kash Patel.This week on Kash’s Corner, we discuss recent statements by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Attorney General Merrick Garland related to investigations into President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, the end of federal vaccine mandates—with some key exceptions—and the Biden administration’s recent announcement that the United States is sending 1,500 more active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.
Jan, I know you have a myriad of topics to talk about.
Where should we start?
So myself, I'm particularly happy to see that this federal vaccine mandate has finally ended.
But it's not actually ended for everybody.
Anyway, we're gonna talk about the implications of that.
Then we have this 51 Intel letter, and frankly, also discussion about obstruction, potential obstruction around the Hunter Biden laptop investigation.
Someone's lying around that.
We don't know who it is.
How do we actually get to the bottom of the truth?
Love to know about that.
And finally, you know, the there's 1,500 active troops heading to the border.
And that's not something I ever thought I'd see, but it might be something that's desperately needed.
I guess we'll start at the top with the end of the COVID mandate requirements.
And as you said, it's for the most part ending, at least as it revolves around federal government operations and federal government agencies and departments.
My what I wanted to start there with was how can the Biden administration both on the one hand say Fauci's the most brilliant medical expert we've ever had, we must listen to him.
And at the same time, end the COVID mandate across the board, which I agree with, it should end, should have ended a long time ago.
When Fauci's out there on national TV as recently as like a week or two ago saying there's going to be yet another outbreak.
So if we really want to prevent the next pandemic, and there will be one, there will absolutely be an outbreak of another pandemic.
It may be next year, or it may be in your grandparent, your grandchildren and your great grandchildren's life sign.
We don't know.
Again, you know, the theme of this show, I'm just gonna guess is going to be let's find out who the liar is and what we do with them once we find it.
Uh we have talked about on this show in the past instances where Fauci has been caught lying, whether it's about the mandates or the vaccines or social distancing or what private companies should do, what government should do, what kids should do at school, and things like that.
I just find it ironic that now the Biden administration is like COVID's over.
I want it to be over, it is over, it was over a long time ago when it comes to all these mandates.
But it's especially curious that they left some exceptions.
Though it's not surprising for government work.
They seem to always carve out exceptions that most of the time don't have sound logic.
And in this instance, I think they've carved out an exception for the NIH, the National Institute of Health, and said we will let them decide.
It's a little weird.
If you're saying it's over, it's over.
And then on the other hand, they're also saying the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is a massive operation that takes care of our soldiers, both active duty and after service for life.
Everyone has driven around America has seen VA hospitals all over the place.
So now we're gonna let them decide whether or not COVID mandates are ending when the government has said they're ending?
That sets up a whole another legal construction that I find problematic.
So now you're saying if you work at the FBI, no mandate.
But if you're N H NIH or you care for our soldiers that VA and those agencies and departments institute a mandate, then you have to give up your job.
But if you just worked at the other agency, you'd be fine.
That doesn't seem to be uh in my in my opinion, a legal hurdle that they can surmount.
Well, and the other question I have is frankly, now that we're talking about this is does that mean that another agency like you know, I don't know, the EPA, for example, could just decide, hey, actually we we we want to have a COVID vaccine mandate.
They could go to court, the EPA or whatever, DEA or whoever, right?
Hypothetically.
Right, hypothetically, they could go to court and be like, wait a second, you the Biden administration carved out an exception for them.
What about us?
I want an exception.
They could sue.
It creates almost more issues that are have to get gonna have to go to court.
I mean, I can't imagine an employee at some of these agencies and departments not raising the legal issue, or as you pointed out, what about a separate agency in themselves that are saying, no, no, no, we want the mandates.
And the government acted improperly, the mandate should be across the board.
Those questions can only be answered in court.
So we'll see how it goes.
The other question I have is, you know, what about you know, people who are let go?
I had someone on American thought leaders just the other day who was, you know, just kind of given a command in the Marines, right?
Yeah.
And, you know, within days of that, had to decide because he they wouldn't give him their religious exemption for the vaccine management to leave it, leave the Marines, right?
And so what happens to people that did that?
With you know, as that's where I go first, as a former chief of staff of the Department of Defense.
So many soldiers, thousands, had to make that decision, and thousands did make the decision to abide by their religious beliefs or affirmations and not take the vaccine mandate, and they were terminated.
The Air Force particularly sticks out in that.
And you can't rewind the clock.
What are you gonna do?
Give them their careers back, put them back in the rank and file system where their promotion should have been, give them back pay.
None of this stuff has been sorted out.
And for me, maybe I'm biased, but I kind of talk about the military first before anything else.
We treated them unlawfully, in my opinion, forced them to choose between faith and service improperly and unlawfully.
Many people were terminated, lives were ruined as a result of that.
And you can't just like flip the switch and say, okay, everybody's back in the club now.
We'll just put you back at the stations you were at, we'll move your families again, we'll never do this to you again until Fauci's next outbreak occurs, and then we'll mandate it all over again.
It's just an ugly end to an ugly situation that was politicized to the max for narrative gain that didn't serve the actual needs of the American population.
You know, it's interesting that you're saying there's this theme of uh, you know, who's where where are the lies coming from, right?
Because I am thinking about that.
We have uh, you know, I'm uh producing uh a documentary on vaccine injury as we're speaking.
It's called the Unseen Crisis.
And I was reflecting on the fact that it it certainly appears that um Anthony Fauci lied about being that there was no transmission, that he believed he knew there was no transmission, right?
It looks like that.
There's other clips that have been up, like for example, we have you know, Secretary Blinken, for example, saying that looking at you know, former acting uh director of the CIA morale, his testimony doesn't seem to comport with what Secretary Blinken's response was, and how do we deal with questions like that, right?
It's a systemic problem, unfortunately.
It's not a political problem, it's not a Democrat or Republican problem.
It's a problem, unfortunately, that stems from a large part from the building back there, um, and people who go in there and testify.
So, what I mean by that is we'll get to the 51 Intel letter in the Blinken situation in a second.
But government officials, especially cabinet secretaries who run agencies and departments that actually run our government, are never supposed to lie under oath, or to the public for that matter.
That's why it's a federal offense.
That's why it's a felony.
And too often we've been plagued with cabinet level officials or senior secretaries that lie.
And we've pointed out on the show numerous occasions where James Comey, as the director of the FBI lied.
Where Chris Ray, the current director of the FBI, lied.
Rod Rosenstein, then acting attorney general, deputy attorney general of the DOJ, lied.
And those are all Republican appointees.
So I don't want it to be as if we're just attacking Democrats.
The whole point of that statute having been passed by Congress is to make sure people don't lie, and when they do, they go to jail.
The problem we've had, and a lot of the frustration that our audience expresses week in and week out is where's the accountability?
Everyone knows they lied.
That's not like a Cash's corner epoch times thing.
These are proven facts that they went in and lied under oath, whether it was Chris Ray and retribution to whistleblowers, whether it was James Comey and the bogus FISA uh warrant that he wrote up and signed for Donald Trump, whether it was Rod Rosenstein and the fact that he lied about who he was surveilling and when on Devin Nunes' team while they were investigating his own corruption.
And not to mention the fact that Rod Rosenstein lied by signing the ultimate FISA warrant that was rescinded by the FISA court itself because it was improperly done.
That's government speak for you lied to us, you, the FBI, DOJ, lied to us, you put your signatures on it.
We're pulling it back and saying it was canceled, it's canceled.
I mean, okay, that's an internal step of accountability, but where's the outward public facing step?
Nothing has happened to any of those folks.
And it was one of the reasons I took on that mission.
I was like, I didn't expect to encounter that level of depravity at the top, but then you expect action from your government.
And you know, Paul Ryan decided to take none as the Speaker of the House back then, and then again, Republican majority, Republican Speaker of the House, failed to hold those guys and gals accountable for lying to his Congress under oath.
So now if we fast forward to today, and uh we'll remind our audience, we covered in depth the Morel situation in last week's episode.
So if you missed that, go check that out.
But what what has happened in that week since is Tony Blinken, the now Secretary of State has come out and made a statement, a public interview.
With regard to uh to that letter.
Um I didn't uh wasn't my idea, didn't ask for it, didn't solicit it.
And uh I think uh the testimony uh that um the former deputy director of the CIA, Mike Morrell put forward confirms that.
And his response was this like Washington, D.C. handshake, hand wash, hand rinsing operation.
He basically said, Oh yeah, what what Mike Morrell said exonerates me.
It makes no sense.
Both you and Mike Morrell cannot both be telling the truth because you are saying two diametrically opposite things.
Mike Morrell is saying you, Tony Blinken, while senior campaign advisor to then candidate Biden in 2020-ish, um, called Mike Morrell and said, Hey, we need a counter narrative to the New York Post reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop.
The solution was that Mike Morrell and 51 other people penned the intel letter that we talked about.
Tony Blinken says, I never talked to Mike Morrell about it in this interview.
Um, and that what Mike Morrell said exonerates him.
It's not logically possible.
So let's give Blinken the benefit of the doubt and say he didn't lie.
Okay, let's figure out who did.
We have sworn testimony locked in place from Mike Morrell.
Now Tony Blinken must come in and swear under oath to a line of questioning that was brilliantly laid out in my opinion by the letter penned by Senators Johnson and Grassley on the Senate side.
Um so if he's correct, then everything Mike Morella said under oath is a lie, and Mike Morrell wants to be prosecuted.
It just doesn't seem like with the information we have right now that that's the case.
And it does seem, as I've dubbed this 51 Intel letter operation, the Steel dossier 2.0, it sort of in my mind equates to this how the Steele dossier was dumped into the FISA warrant, right?
If you look at it from that perspective, you have Tony Blinken receiving a letter uh from 51 intelligence officers, Secretary of Defense, CIA director, NSA director, deputies, chiefs, all this stuff, Mike Morrell, et cetera.
And Joe Biden then takes that letter and holds it up at a presidential debate and says, Look, anything anyone says about Hunter Biden's laptop is false.
It's Russian disinformation.
Here's the letter.
They manufactured information, like they did with the SEAL Dossier.
And the only difference was in the Steel Dossier, they gave it to both the FBI and the media.
Here they just gave it to the media and the candidate used it, and they knew it was false.
Because now we have sworn testimony that shows Mike Morrell, the architect of the letter, saying he did it for political reasons, so that Joe Biden would win and Donald Trump would lose.
So they can't both be telling the truth.
And to me, as a former government official and a guy who's investigated, you know, criminals, cops, FBI agents, the like, the DOJ, the FBI, there can't be a two-tier system of justice.
And circling back to the Senator Grassley and Johnson letter, which we'll put up for our audience, we know that, especially Senator Grassley's work with whistleblowers, that he is very methodical and not in a rush to go to the media, and definitely not in a rush to send out a letter like that.
But when you reach a certain point, which I think we've surpassed, you have to have to have to now go after them.
The problem is we've highlighted this in the past, they're in the Senate.
The Republicans don't have the gavels, so they can send a letter that Tony Blinken doesn't have to respond to, and nothing can happen.
What should happen in the House of Representatives Is the Judiciary Committee, the Weaponization Committee, the Intel Committee, Oversight Committee, a number of committees, should subpoena Tony Blinken, subpoena all the emails.
And remember, Tony Blinken, at the time he was in communication with Mike Morrell about the 51 Intel letter, wasn't a government official.
So we're not going after Tony Blinken, the Secretary of State.
We're going after Tony Blinken and investigating the private American citizen.
Get his emails, get his wife's emails.
If you did nothing wrong, then there won't those emails won't exist.
The only way to actually get accountability, and we know, having covered this Justice Department, this FBI, they are never going to prosecute anyone at a senior level in the Biden administration.
They're not.
Just like they failed to prosecute anyone at a senior level position in the Trump administration, because the DOJ, in my opinion, has become completely morally bankrupt when it comes to policing its own, that is its own government employees at senior level positions, it's left to Congress.
And it's up to Congress to get the truth out to the American people in the form of subpoenas, so you get the emails, so you get the text messages, so you get the call records and the money.
Who paid for what?
And talk to the people that signed the letter.
That's the sort of uh big component to this that no one has done at Congress yet.
Why aren't there 51 subpoenas from the House of Representatives side?
Everybody that signed that letter, come in and cestify under oath.
Well, I guess there's only 50 left now.
Mike Morrell already came in, so 50 other people, and ask them what happened.
Why did you sign it?
Did you know it was false?
If you knew it was false, why did you sign it anyway?
Are they gonna say the same thing that Morrell said to rig a presidential election?
Were they working for the Biden campaign?
Did they have contact with Tony Blinken or his wife or other senior level officials in the Biden campaign?
I think these are all answers that we are owed, and the only way we're gonna get it is Congress.
And then I think the next step that Congress must take on the 51 Intel officials is if it plays out the way we have seen the facts roll out here, then they should be stripped of their security clearances permanently.
These 51 intelligence officers have left government, have high-flying, big paying jobs because of their prior position, and because they have a top-secret SCI active security clearance.
They cannot be allowed to put out disinformation knowingly to rig election cycles and then profit from that.
And technically, taking away someone's security clearance is a job for the OD and I through their uh coordinate agencies and departments or the White House.
But we know this OD and I and White House aren't gonna do anything.
So what Congress must do, people always ask me, well, how do you do that then?
You zero out the funding for the security clearances that are hosted for these 51 intelligence officers.
It's a specific line of funding.
The government still has to host that.
They have to pay to have that done.
And if you take away the money, then you take away their clearance.
So what about this uh IRS whistleblower that that came to Grassley, actually.
Yeah, so look, it's I guess the theme of the episode is who's lying, and once we catch you, what happens?
Is there going to be any accountability?
So now we have Merrick Garland, the number one law enforcement officer in the country, our attorney general.
He has said in the past, the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, whether it's the IRS component of it, the firearms component of it, the fraud component of it, or any other crime on there, is being run by the U.S. attorney in Delaware, and he's he's ought to remind us that it's a Trump appointee.
I'm not sure that that matters.
And he has said in the past, there will be no interference.
That's good.
That's what we want.
We don't want any political interference of any kind.
Here's the problem.
This IRS whistleblower comes forward, and we don't have all the information because he's doing it under the whistleblower protection act, or at least trying to divulge information that fashion.
He's gone to multiple inspector generals, including the DOJ and IRS, um, and his lawyers trying to get more of what he has over there.
But essentially, what this IRS whistleblower, Per Grassley, has said is there has been political obstruction in the investigation into Hunter Biden, at least as it relates to the IRS tax fraud component of that criminal investigation.
So again, is he lying, the IRS whistleblower?
Then by all accounts, no one's been able to point out that he's a political figure or active in, you know, in GOP or Democratic side and donating a lot of money.
He just seems to be a career government guy.
But Merrick Garland has doubled down.
Just today, right before we were filming, Merrick Garland was asked at the uh Justice Department about the Hunter Biden investigation and with a reference alluding to this IRS whistleblower.
And he said there has been none and there will be no obstruction of Hunter Biden.
Okay, now we got a problem again.
Who's lying?
The IRS whistleblower who is willing to come forward and wants to divulge this information and wants to submit to under oath testimony of Congress.
Good, we need that.
That has to happen.
Now we have to subpoena Merrick Rowland and put him under oath.
Is it possible that he just doesn't know?
Because this is what I was I was thinking about.
I mean, this is a we have a very large large set of departments, right?
So it's interesting.
You're right, absolutely, that he he he's on record talking about that today, but I mean he might there this might be happening independently of anything Merrick Garland is doing, right?
It's possible, of course, the attorney general is not supposed to know about the inner workings of every criminal investigation that's being undertaken by his department across the country and around the world.
Of course not.
Probably shouldn't even know about a fraction of them.
His job is not the everyday line prosecution matters.
His job is macro level.
But this isn't an everyday case.
This is the son of the sitting president.
And he has repeatedly made public statements on it.
He has taken more than just an interest in this case, and the public has an overwhelming interest in this case.
So for him, if this is what happens when he finally testifies, he says, Well, I didn't know that that was going on.
I don't think I believe that.
Um, but he'll probably get away with saying that uh under oath because it's how are you gonna prove otherwise unless this whistleblower somehow comes forward and says I was in a room with Merrick Arlen, or here's an email from Eric Garland or to the office of the attorney general or something like that.
So it's it'd be difficult to prove.
But what I'm more concerned with is the constant DC laundering of the truth, the DC handshake.
If you go back to Tony Blinken, he comes out and says, Mike Marlowe exonerated me.
That doesn't make any sense.
But the media picks up on it and gives him the benefit of the doubt and just says, okay, Tony Blinken's not lying.
Next, Merrick Garland comes in twice and says, this investigation is free from political obstruction of any kind.
Now you have the whistleblower.
So he double downs and makes the statement again.
Why can't these folks just say we are going to submit to an investigation?
Congress, you don't even have to subpoena us.
We're gonna come, we owe you answers, we owe you documents, you are our constitutional oversight, and you report to the American people, please give them all the information.
So at least the public knows what happened.
But they care about so much about what's going on that they do it to themselves, they the government all the time, is that the cover-up is worse than what actually happened underneath it.
And whether it's Russia Gate or Jan Six or Ukraine impeachment or what have you, the cover-up constantly trips people up because in my opinion, they don't want to tell the truth, they don't tell the truth, they got they get caught, and then they make these blanket statements to say they're somehow above board.
And tragically, the media carries that water for them, given their political orientation.
So it's gonna be tough to get the answers to some of these questions, but they're the only guys and gals behind us that can do it.
And we've outlined it before, we'll keep outlining on the show where we think they should send subpoenas and all this stuff.
But the simple matter remains an IRS investigation is based on numbers and money.
Bank documents and money doesn't lie.
It's pretty simple.
Either he got income and paid his taxes or he didn't.
Oh, I saw him in the bank with the gun, but it might have been the other guy who pulled the trigger, I couldn't tell, they had a ski mask on.
Hunter Biden's already admitted to getting all this income.
He already admitted to not paying the taxes on it, then he had some third party come in and pay the tax bill.
So what are we waiting for?
You know, it begs the question why is this criminal investigation, at least that component of it taking so long, if he's all but admitted to it.
And here's the kicker, Jan, and I don't think we talked about this before.
Hunter Biden's attorneys went to the Department of Justice a week or two ago and received a high level audience.
That almost never happens.
Having been a defender myself, if I said, hey, my client wants a meeting with the senior leadership at DOJ so we can discuss the price of tea in China, they would have laughed me out of the building.
But they got an audience.
You don't go into the Department of Justice representing the president's son under criminal investigation unless you are trying to resolve the matter.
And the prediction I have made is that I believe Hunter Biden will be charged and soon.
But I think they'll roll it up into what we call this global plea agreement, where he basically gets charged with some Mickey Mouse lower level offenses, walks into a super light sentence, and then they will cover up the cover-up.
Merrick Garland and company will go to the podium and say, we prosecuted Joe Biden's son, even though he's the president of the United States, and they'll gloss over the fact that any other individual who committed those crimes would have been treated differently.
That's the that's what I think is happening right now.
That's why I think that meeting occurred.
Um because I think the lawyers, some of whom I know, are smart enough to realize that there's no way he can't get charged with anything.
So we'll see what Merrick Garland has to say about it, and I think he should be subpoenaed.
Well, so, and I I really do hope this gets resolved because the thing the thing that concerns me about all this, however it plays out, whatever we learn, because I'm very, you know, it's very open to actually finding out what the truth is in these situations, is that overall, as these things, types of things keep happening, it keeps undermining Americans' faith in their system, frankly.
Right.
And I find this, I find this deeply troubling.
Well, that's the most um detrimental consequence of all this.
It's not I told you so, or look, we caught the secretary of this lying, or the you know, this senior official lying.
That's a failure of government, whether you're a Dremacrat, whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
That is a monumental failure in your oath of office and your duty to the American people, each and every time it occurs.
What's an even bigger failure?
Them getting away with it.
And that's what frustrates the American people even more than the underlying crime itself, is that they are subjected to a different level of scrutiny and system of justice than anyone else would have been had they gone across the street here and lied to Congress under oath.
And that's just one example.
And we we've talked about all the others on how disparate people have been treated across different um instances of criminal conduct, be it the Molotov cocktail NYPD flamethrowers in New York City versus the Jan 6 folks versus the Minnesota rioters versus the folks in Portland, who literally burned a federal courthouse and things like that, and just how differently the Justice Department treated all those cases.
And to me, that's why most people are saying crazy things like disband the FBI.
I don't believe that.
I think it needs monster reforms and headquarters components needs to be moved out of Washington, D.C. And the agents need to be sent to the field to do criminal work.
That's a whole different conversation.
But it leads to that sort of conversation that's dangerous to a republic.
The overcorrection of the problem by saying, just get rid of everyone.
We don't need this agency or that agency at all.
And I'm the first one to tell you, yes, there's massive abuse, but it needs reform and it has to be thought out in a methodical fashion.
The problem is when we say stuff like that, we lose credibility in the public eye, and maybe rightfully so, because they're like, look, you keep relying on this government that keeps lying to us and applying the law selectively.
So I'm sorry, I can't believe what you're saying anymore.
And that's what I mean when it's so destructive.
It's destructive from both ends.
Both the government officials and the American public are on this crash course to slam into each other, and it's probably gonna happen soon, and I don't know what the outcome of that will be unless we have actual accountability From one of the only places we have left to get it so we can show the American public this is what happened, this person lied, this person didn't.
We may not be able to indict him, but now you know, and now you know the truth.
And that to me is the hardest fight we have.
It's uh, you know, it's feels like a kind of a much needed pressure release valve of sorts, right?
The truth, yeah, it would be, would be nice, but I don't know if it's coming.
Well, let's jump to our final topic.
Yeah.
You know, um, 1,500 troops, from what I understand, are heading to the border.
That's seems like it's actually needed.
And I mean, the reports we get from our reporters at the border are very serious.
Um, what do you make of this?
Well, again, it's uh who's lying, right?
Either there is a crisis at the border or there isn't.
It's one or the other.
I I think there's I think it's very clear there's a massive crisis at the border.
Well, you and I have been clear on the on the fact that we believe that.
There's a narcotics crisis, there's an illegal immigration wave crisis, there's a criminal crisis, there's a money laundering crisis, there's a whole whole host of Chinese fentanyl, tons of stuff, right?
Killing Americans, destroying our economy, and bringing down our justice system.
But the Biden administration, and I'm sure we can find a clip from either the press secretaries or Biden himself saying in the past, there is no crisis at the border.
If that were the case, then you, as the commander-in-chief, do not dispatch active duty soldiers to the southern border.
Now, they've caveat it, again, going back to this sort of government handshake government laundering cycle of, oh no, we're just sending them because DHS kind of asked us for them, and uh they're just gonna walk around.
Why are you sending active duty soldiers on a deployment cycle to the southern border?
They both can't be true.
So I think on this one, there's a little more clarity because the documentation is so prolific on the crisis at the southern border.
Literally weekly.
And now they're getting ready specifically for the Title 42 to expire, which is that uh executive authority that President Trump implemented about um keeping illegal immigrants at bay during COVID, etc.
And so you've seen reporting that there's this massive caravan set to hit the United States Southern border in like a week.
Are these thousands of people running up to America?
Is that fake?
Are they, is that not happening?
Is that you know I I I have a wry smile on my face and I'm joking about it, but sometimes you have to posit it that way to people who for years have said there is no crisis.
And to me, it's another one of those points where you have to take it as a journalist and put it forward and say it's not a Democrat or Republican thing.
It's a fact that the White House lied to you for so long about it, and then now, in my opinion, it's a variation of the lie by them saying we're sending top cover, but not really.
Um we still think everything's okay.
They're just gonna be down there just in case.
Both of those things can't be true.
So we'll see how that plays out.
Me as a former chief of staff at DOD, you never send active duty soldiers anywhere just for the heck of it.
It's not what we train our men and women for.
Um within the country, right?
Right.
Yeah, yeah.
Whether it's within the country or overseas, you're not just like, oh yeah, just go hang out there for you know, six months, and maybe something will happen.
That's not the purpose of the United States Department of Defense.
And people might be saying, oh, it's the National Guard.
No, this isn't the National Guard.
That's a whole different thing.
And we've talked about it extensively in the past.
National Guard is utilized for a very different purpose when called upon.
This is active duty military.
Um might be in the reserves, or the majority might come from the reserves, but they're still active duty.
So they are the United States military being deployed by the commander-in-chief exclusively to the southern border.
That is a direct action-oriented maneuver of the Department of Defense pursuant to Joe Biden's instruction.
Well, no, and it I mean, and as I said at the beginning, it seems like it's probably a good idea at this point, actually.
Well, I'm not arguing against it.
I think we need more DHS down there, I think we need more FBI down there, I think we need way more border patrol, we need more money, we need a whole host of things that need to happen down at the southern border.
But we've talked about that in the past.
But uh I think to me this is more of a we're addressing it in the media rather than addressing the problem.
And that seems to be another theme if I as as do a quick rewind of the show here.
Whether it's Blinken or Garland or Biden, they seem to make these statements or maneuvers in the media to address the matter in the media.
And it seems to be the improper decision at every turn.
So we'll see how it all shakes out.
Cash, I think it's time for our shout-out.
Indeed, Jan.
And as we always do, we'll stay on this.
And it is time for our shout-out.
This week's shout-out goes to Chad Demiani.
Thanks so much for your nice note on our comments board.
Yes, I am more articulate than Jan.
No, I'm just kidding.
Jan and I are uh very uh humbled by all the commentary that everyone provides.
Um it's very nice to know that we have such a great audience who's so engaged at the detail level.
It's what makes us keep putting out the show week after week.
