Kash Patel: Durham Failed. With No Real Accountability, the Russiagate Playbook Will Be Repeated Again and Again
“This was the one opportunity for John Durham to fix the two-tier system of justice. He was the man charged with that duty. And he had that opportunity. And in my opinion, Jan, he failed. And this will only degrade the FBI and DOJ and our intel communities further,” says Kash Patel, who was the chief investigator of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russiagate investigation back in 2017 and 2018.“In the Durham report, it states that Kevin Clinesmith declined to participate. What do you mean ‘declined to participate’? Jan, do you remember the Mueller investigation? Was anyone allowed to decline their participation?” Patel says.“Individuals like Kevin Clinesmith, Peter Strzok, James Comey, Andy McCabe … none of them were brought under subpoena and compelled to testify,” Patel says.So what’s next? And in particular, for the Americans who feel increasingly disillusioned about accountability, what does Kash Patel see as the way forward?
What may surprise you is not the extent of the fraud and corruption and unlawful activity that John Durham exposed in his report, but my reaction to it specifically in its failure to hold people accountable in John Durham's shortcomings.
Now it's not a criticism of John Durham directly.
Rather, it was a moment in history where we had an opportunity to fix the two-tier system of justice that Jan and I have been talking about on our show for years.
And this moment may have slipped us by because John Durham failed to act.
Why did he do that?
What were his justifications?
And what is the outcome of the Durham Report?
Jan has a lot of pressing questions, and we got a lot of things to cover.
Where would you like to start, Jan?
Well, Cash, yeah, absolutely.
You know, we've been talking about the Durham Report and different iterations of new information, the Horowitz report back in the day.
I mean, we've been actually looking at this for basically five years.
I have a headline on my wall from 2018.
I'm just gonna read it to you, okay?
This was the front page headline of the Epoch Times print edition.
Obama officials spied on Trump campaign using at least five methods.
This was May 2018.
So if we've known a lot of what was in this report already over the past five years that has come out.
However, we have a lot of viewers that actually may not even know the core substance of what happened.
What was Russia Gate?
How did it happen?
And maybe why don't you start us off right there?
Well, Jan, let me see if I can give you five years in five minutes.
As the chief investigator on the House Intel Committee, we put a lot of this information out that's in John Durham's report years ago.
So what was Russia Gate?
Russiagate was a political operation launched by the Democratic Party in the Hillary Clinton campaign to unlawfully utilize campaign dollars to go overseas and purchase false information from Christopher Steele, a FBI informant and former British intelligence officer, then take that information and have it synthesized into a document only to have it intentionally placed in the hands of the FBI.
Then the FBI takes that document and other information and launches a full-scale investigation into Donald Trump, knowing the information in the document is false.
If that's not bad enough, they then next look to increase their investigation and its capacity and take it to the max by going to the federal intelligence surveillance court.
That's just fancy speech for a court that is secret, but its authorities are so expansive in intelligence collection that not everyone has access to it, and its inner proceedings are held behind closed doors.
So once they go to the court, the FBI says to the judge, we have all this information that Donald Trump's a Russian asset, and at that time before the judge, they lie about the information, the facts, the biases, and most importantly, they do not give the court the evidence of innocence of the targets of that in very investigation.
one of the most fundamental requirements in a judicial warrant process.
So the FBI has now knowingly lied to a federal court to ultimately achieve the objective it wanted from the beginning, which was to surveil a political candidate that they did not like.
And they succeeded.
And that's Russia Gate, Jan, in terms of how it got off the ground and what steps the FBI took.
The rest is the autopsy on how could that have occurred in the United States of America in 2023?
How could the premier law enforcement agency under James Comey and Andy McCabe allow themselves to lie and break the law to achieve a political objective?
But that's exactly what happened.
And that's what unfolded In the years since the Nunes Memo and our corresponding report were put out, and Inspector General Horowitz's report was put out, and now we end up with John Durham's special counsel report on the matter.
And Jan, the FBI was so concerned with covering its own corruption that one of its deputies actually put out in writing that there's to be no more documentation from the FBI on how to justify the Russia Gate investigation.
That's in the John Durham report, and we'll put it up for our audience.
Just think about that, Jan.
The FBI, who's supposed to document everything, specifically had its leadership come in and say, stop documenting so that the cover-up could continue and they could never be exposed.
Well, I want to highlight one thing here, right?
Or actually two things.
The first one is this is kind of goes in two stages.
The first stage is actually Clinton campaign, you know, OPO research, and I use the research word in quotes here, because of course it was all fabricated, right?
And then the second part is where uh DOJ and FBI basically pick up where the campaign left off once Trump wins.
I mean, I think that is an astounding realization.
I just like hadn't fully grasped that that's how it played out.
That's one.
And number two, I just wanted to mention that that FISA warrant was for uh basically a Trump campaign participant, Carter Page specifically, not Trump himself, and that what but what that allowed, because of the nature of these FISA warrants, it allowed kind of one hop away.
So basically, there was surveillance on the entire campaign was allowed through this one FISA warrant on this one pretty low-level Trump campaign official.
You're absolutely right.
Having done FISA warrants when I was a national security prosecutor, that's exactly what they're for.
You utilize your investigative prowess, or you're supposed to, to lawfully target an individual that's operating in a ring or an entity or a conspiracy.
And you target the weakest link, the one that you believe is easiest to get the warrant on, because once you flip it on, as Jan says, you can collect on everybody else because of the sensitive natures and authorities that that warrant provides, which is why it should never have been rubber stamped like it was um with the Carter Page warrant, and so many individuals thereafter helped um provide an unlawful justification day in and day out for over a year.
The other thing I just want to mention, and this is something that Lee Smith noted, but I we've we've written about it in our own coverage as well, but he kind of highlighted how significant this is.
It's that the only actual Russian intelligence that was collected in this whole thing was that Russia knew about the so-called Clinton plan, as it was described in Durham's report, right?
Which is the plan to smear Donald Trump and his campaign with the idea that he is uh Russian asset somehow.
Yeah, turns out the only Russian assets were the FBI and the DOJ.
Wow, that's that's uh that that's a pretty strong statement, Cash.
Well, let's break it down for our audience.
I think John Durham will give us the ability to do that, but uh I think our audience might know that I'll probably gonna be a little harsh on Mr. Durham in this episode.
So, Cash, I'm seeing some really dramatic, kind of opposite sides of the spectrum responses to basically this Durham report, right?
On the one side, I see people saying this is a complete failure, right?
We knew all this information for years.
Um, you know, basically this is falling flat.
Where is the accountability?
There's no accountability, that's one side.
The other side, people are saying, wow, we have this codified in an official DOJ document that there was no predicate, and that now basically the world is forced to kind of admit to this.
And uh, you know, to that effect, we even see headlines on CNN and so forth, which talk about this, that there was no basis for for this whole investigation to begin in the first place.
So I think there's two main takeaways, Jan, and with an investigation like this involving presidential candidates, presidents of the United States, and future presidents of the United States, there's a political analysis to be made, and then there's a substantive legal analysis.
We'll focus mostly on the latter, but let's just take care of the first one out of the gate.
The central question for special counsel John Durham for the entire Russia Gate matter was the same question any prosecutor should have been asking themselves of any case.
Do I have the justification under the law to open this investigation?
And we answered that answer with a resounding no after our investigation concluded back in 2018 with the Nunes Memo and the Russia Gate uh corresponding report that we publicized to the world.
But the media didn't want to believe that fact.
So they carried the water for the deep state and the DOJ and the FBI who are conducting this investigation, and uh through the process of Adam Schiff and company going to the world and continuing to lie, that there was ample evidence and information that Donald Trump was a Russian asset, many people believed it.
So we get to John Durham.
He was supposed to be the final arbiter of that question.
Did the DOJ and FBI lawfully open this investigation in the first place into Donald Trump?
John Durham answered that question with a resounding no.
And if you don't believe us or the report, CNN let out after the Durham report was published, and we'll put up this up for our audience, Jake Tapper said that this is devastating.
Devastating to the FBI, and to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump.
This, the John Durham report, is devastating to the FBI, and the FBI had no predicate to open this investigation.
Those were the findings and reportings from John Durham, and that's how CNN covered it.
Now, if the investigation should never have happened, then nothing after it should have been permitted out of the DOJ and FBI for law enforcement purposes.
And it wasn't, it was permitted for political purposes.
And so what you have here is from President Trump's perspective, the political point, he will now go out there as he's done the last four or five years and say it has now been definitively proven that Russia Gate was a total fraud, and there was no predicate to launch because the FBI and DOJ did not have the facts to do so.
That's the political side.
Now the law enforcement DOJ, intelligence community side is much more complicated.
But the short answer is they didn't have the facts to present enough information to a FISA court to surveil Donald Trump's campaign in the first place.
They didn't have those facts because the DOJ and FBI lied, broke the law, violated their oaths of office, and submitted fraudulent information they knew to be false because they wanted to achieve a political end.
And so there you have the confluence of the political and the legal yawn from the John Durham report.
But the underpinnings of this report are devastating as CNN put it to the FBI and DOJ.
But as I'll put it, the underpinnings to this report are a complete failure in my perspective.
This was the one opportunity for John Durham to fix the two-tier system of justice.
He was the man charged with that duty.
And he had that opportunity, and in my opinion, Jan, he failed.
And this will only degrade the FBI and DOJ and our intel communities further, which will only disserve the American public when it comes to protecting our nation and upholding our laws.
So I think what you're talking about here, Cash, is you know, first of all, like the one person charged and convicted in this whole scheme as uh Kevin Kleinsmith.
And Kevin Kleinsmith actually altered an email, going back to Carter Page now for a moment, altered an email that basically made it so that the FISA court believed that Carter Page had nothing to do with the CA when in fact it was known that he was an actual CIA asset at the time.
But there didn't seem to be heavy consequences.
Right.
Just think about it.
An FBI attorney involved in the Russian gate investigation, lied to a federal court intentionally, altered a document, knowing it to be false, just so the FBI and DOJ could cross the threshold of probable cause and submit it to a judge and get their warrant.
That guy was convicted in federal court.
But he is also the example of where where John Durham succeeded and where John Durham failed.
He was convicted because the document speaks for itself.
And what John Durham then did was a total failure.
He did not bind Kevin Kleinsmith's cooperation in the plea agreement thereafter.
And in the Durham report, it states that Kevin Kleinsmith declined to be participate.
What do you mean declined to participate?
Jan, do you remember the Mueller investigation?
Was anyone allowed to decline their participation?
You, as a federal prosecutor, a federal subpoena authority, you subpoena that individual.
If they do not comply, the United States Marshals go and get them, place them under oath in a grand jury proceeding or at trial, and then you continue your investigation.
Hans Monkey at Epoch Times had a great post on social media the other day.
And he listed the folks, and we'll put this up now, that John Durham failed to gain participation from.
These individuals like Kevin Kleinsmith, Peter Strapp, James Comey, Andy McKay, and a few others.
The special counsel for the Russia Gate investigation failed to commit these individuals to a grand jury.
The architecture of the biggest fraudulent conspiracy in DOJ FBI history, John Durham refused to bring in the director of the FBI and the deputy director who launched this investigation and signed the bogus warrants, and the participants in Kevin Kleinsmith and others, Peter Strack, who orchestrated the entire counterintelligence narrative.
None of them were brought under subpoena and compelled to testify.
To me, that is a shocking failure as a prosecutor in the of the first order.
And I don't see a justification for it.
And I'll give you one vignette that was produced in the John Durham report.
Andy McCabe, the deputy director of the FBI, was so hell-bent on getting this investigation off the ground that when that infamous fabricated piece of evidence came in from London from the Australian government employees that somehow Papadopoulos and Trump and company were going to utilize Russia to upend an election.
Andy McCabe admits that he never spoke to the person who provided that information.
Nobody at the FBI spoke to the person who provided that information.
Jan, that just doesn't happen at any level of the FBI.
When you open a case based on source reporting, you go speak to the source.
But this is how in the bag they were for the Clinton campaign and others, or to put it better, how much they wanted to defeat Donald Trump.
And that led to the opening of the investigation.
And then James Comey, it's spelled out in the Durham report, had such a desire to see the FISA warrant occur.
That is the investigation that Andy and McCabe and them opened.
James Comey wanted to take the next step, as we highlighted in the opening of the show, that he kept literally begging him for it.
And that's in the Durham Report.
So the two people responsible for our law enforcement community launched a fraudulent investigation, lied to a federal court just to augment that investigation, leaked about it to the press, and allowed it to continue for over a year, and John Durham didn't speak to them.
That tells me everything you need to know about his failures from an investigative standpoint.
Now, one question that comes to my mind is there some way that the higher level officials at the DOJ could have somehow, you know, kind of prevented him from doing this, or I mean, I don't actually understand how it works, but you do what you understand how it works.
Well, I think you mean is there is there a mechanism at DOJ to have stalled John Durham or to have obstructed his investigation.
And that rests with the attorney general.
Every special counsel appointed in U.S. history under the law reports the attorney general.
And John Durham answered that question for us.
In the opening of his report, he said Merrick Garland, essentially, and I'm paraphrasing, allowed him to do whatever he wanted.
Now, either John Durham's lying And put that in there anyway, or Merrick Garland somehow obstructed his investigation, and maybe we'll find that out when John Durham testifies before Congress, which I'm sure is coming.
So if we take his report on face value, this is why I'm so critical of John Durham.
He says he was allowed to do everything he wanted to do.
And no one got in the way.
And that's almost as upsetting as the Russia Gate investigation conducted by the FBI and DOJ itself.
For me, it just it just feels really bizarre, right?
When you when you frame as you just discussed, um, you know, these different facts in order, it's just it's really bizarre.
Like, how is it even possible that he didn't talk to these people?
Um, I think if I'm being honest, Jan, which I try to be, um, bizarre is being kind to John Durham.
John Durham is a 30-plus year prosecutor, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, which man's he ran an entire federal prosecutor's office, served multiple jurisdictions and administrations, Democrat and Republican.
There's no way he doesn't know how to use the grand jury process and subpoena individuals.
And then if it finally comes out that these individuals told him, oh, they were going to plead the fifth, you know what you do?
You take that individual before a federal judge and you give them immunity, and then they must testify.
That's how it works.
I know that because I was a former federal prosecutor.
I also know that because of the January 6th, sixth committee shenanigans and how they abused the subpoena process and compulsory process.
So there's no excuse for John Durham here.
That is the purpose.
And it doesn't mean that the witness has to volunteer and submit and request immunity.
A federal court and the Department of Justice can force it upon you.
And then once you have immunity, they can't be prosecuted.
So he didn't even want to take those steps and get the answers to those questions, tells me everything he needed to know.
He, like Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein and Chris Ray and Merrick Garland and James Comey and Andy McKay cared more about protecting the institution that they served than fixing it.
The two-tier system of justice today continues because John Durham failed.
It seems at the very least, we haven't codified, you know, what actually happened in this official DOJ document that Attorney General Merrick Garland did sign off on.
You mentioned uh Congressman Schiff earlier.
You know, we recently got an exclusive with Congressman Schiff where he's basically kind of casts doubt on this.
I'm just gonna tell you uh what he said.
He said, if you read Mr. Durham's report, what he said is that there wasn't evidence of collusion before they began the investigation.
That's obviously a very important distinction.
What's your reaction?
Adam Schiff is the largest purveyor of disinformation and falsehoods in United States history.
I think we should play the clip right now for our audience where Adam Schiff went to the microphone four years ago, holding a manila envelope and said, there is more than circumstantial evidence of Donald Trump's involvement with the Russian collusion operation.
I've seen it.
I haven't.
So you have seen direct evidence of collusion.
Uh I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and uh and is very much worthy of investigation.
So that is what we ought to do.
Then fast forward to your statement, which just happened this week and was given to EPOC Times.
That is a lens in which anybody should view Adam Schiff's statements through.
He's now putting an arbitrary date that collusion started after the investigation.
So then you agree, Adam Schiff, that John Durham found the FBI and DOJ had absolutely no basis to launch that investigation.
So then, by your own admission, Adam Schiff, you lied to the world for the five years before John Durham's report was published.
Which version do you want us to believe?
And that's why I think Adam Schiff and company, Eric Swalwell, and the rest of the individuals in Congress who allowed the FBI DOJ to be politicized and weaponized, are equally as culpable in this criminal conspiracy as the individuals we've talked about on this show, both in the past and today.
You know, I had an episode with uh Hans Monkey and Jeff Carlson, some of these are top RussiaGate researchers, you know, the so from the little so-called little corner of Twitter, you know, we've we often talk on this show about hashtag unleash the sleuths.
You know, we we want to get information so folks who have incredibly analytical minds can look at look at that information.
Um but their take really was like, hey, where is the accountability then?
You know, okay, so we know it's real, we know what happened, it's intimately spelled out.
Um the FBI uh is basically saying, yes, probab there were problems, but we've rectified these problems, and we we're gonna make sure that it doesn't happen again.
This is what uh this is me paraphrasing the statement both that we got and that was public for the general public.
Um but that there seems to be an accountability gap here.
I'm so glad you brought this up.
Jan, and we'll get back to the latter part of your question involving the FBI statement.
Let's start with accountability.
And that is to me the whole point, the whole reason that you have a special counsel is because you want accountability, because people broke the law, they need to be punished.
And what Hans and everybody was talking about at Epoch and online, and the frustration that so many are venting now after the Durham report is where the arrest, where are the prosecutions?
Especially since you, John Durham in your 300 six-page report have outlined a staggering amount of criminal conduct by the Russia Gay characters.
Comey, McKay, Strapp, Lisa Page, Bill Priestat, uh Bruce and Nelly Orr, Fusion GPS, Perkins Coey, Rodney Jaffee, Stefan Halper, and the list goes on.
But John Durham listed them all and explained in excruciating detail what we all knew this entire time that they lied to federal courts, withheld evidence, used the media to leak sensitive information, lied to the world, raped a presidential election, and they now are going to continue to do it because you, John Durham held no one accountable, arrested nobody of substance.
To me, Jan, that's his biggest failure.
In his report, he goes to great lengths to talk about DOJ policy and the reasoning for bringing prosecutions and charging decisions and the reasoning not to.
You want to know when you bring a charging decision as a prosecutor, when the facts support it.
And John Durham's whole report supports an entire charging document against a slew of individuals.
Then he hides behind bogus DOJ policy, which is not the law, by the way, and provides a myriad of deflections and reasonings to not bring criminal cases.
I think John Durham didn't want to complete the mission he was he was asked to take on.
And I think in large part it's because he didn't want to be the one to tear down the DOJ and FBI.
But that's what was needed based on his report.
And now it's not fixed.
Which leads us to the FBI statement, which in my opinion is more lethal than the FBI's conduct during Russia Gate.
Chris Ray, the director of the FBI and his his comms department gave the Epoch Times and the media a statement on the Durham report.
In summary, it says the FBI already implemented so many changes that had they been in place back then in 2016, there would have been no corruption by Comey and company and the DOJ.
He has the gall to go out there and say we've already fixed it when you, Chris Ray, were part of the cover-up, which is my next biggest complaint about RussiaGate, not just that it happened, but that DOJ and FBI didn't allow it to be covered up on Chris Ray's watch, and we are to take your word that you fixed it.
No.
John Durham had an opportunity to uh achieve something that is probably never going to happen again in US history.
A moment where you could have wholesale fixed the FBI and DOJ and returned them to conduct law enforcement pro uh investigations and charging decisions based on law and not politics.
Not only did you let the architects of Russia Gate get away with it, but you let the cover-up operators in Chris Ray and Rod Rosenstein and company get away with it.
And now they put out bogus statements like if we weren't charged back then, it would never have happened.
But the cover-up was worse than the crime, as is always the case.
I can't help but think about this.
You know, on many of our episodes in the past, um, you know, you were a real kind of fan and booster of Durham, frankly.
And you know, in many cases, there are a lot of people saying nothing's gonna happen with this.
And you said, no, no, no.
There's there's you you you think something will.
So this must be hitting you, you know, particularly hard here.
Yeah, look, I was John Durham's champion.
You know, I was the guy in the arena saying, nope, he's got it.
He has a background, he's apolitical, he knows how to conduct these types of investigations.
And I thought he would apply that skill set and not be swayed by media politics and the current environment.
I was wrong.
And that's why you're right, Jan.
It is frustrating for me to see.
It's not about me being right or wrong.
The loss here is to the United States of America.
The loss here is that while the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign and the FBI and Comey and Brennan and Clapper and all these individuals knew about the crime of the century, permitted it to occur, the crime of the century being Russia Gate, not that Donald Trump was a Russian asset.
And then when he had the opportunity to restore faith in our judicial process, he failed.
There's one more residual effect that he failed to cure.
And that is it's already happened again.
And we've talked about it on past shows, and I've dubbed the 51 Intel letter, the Steel Dossier 2.0.
And it's by the same perpetrators who ran the same exact playbook back when they ran the Steele Dossier to rig a presidential election, wire to wire.
And here's what's worse, Jon.
They're probably doing 3.0 and 4.0.
Because they are sitting there saying we got away with it.
Not only did we get away with it, James Comey has been telling tall tales for years and making millions off his book.
Andy McCabe had his pension restored after he was fired by Donald Trump at the FBI.
This administration restored his pension and rewarded him for breaking the law.
That's just naming three individuals who are rewarded by their malfeasance and unlawful conduct because John Durham failed to act.
Who's gonna be next?
I'm sure we'll be talking about it on our show.
What's the next iteration?
We already have the 51 Intel letter, but as I said, I'm sure 3.0 and 4.0 are on the way.
And that, Jan is the biggest harm to America.
Our judicial system is now not tier one, tier two, tier three.
It doesn't even rank anymore.
So Cash, you know, what this makes me think of is, you know, of course, the 51 Intel letter, as you call it, amounts to significant election interference.
And, you know, many people have been saying Russia Gate itself amounts to significant election interference, as you just said on the show earlier as well.
Um, and then there might be future very, or not there might be, you expect there will be future variants of this because there was an accountability around this, like substantive accountability, right?
And so a lot of people at this point are wondering about the civic process.
I mean, we keep hearing about it in our comments on the different episodes that I do.
What's the point in participating in the electoral process if things like this happen?
How do you respond to people like that?
Simple.
If you bend the knee to these criminals, then you're worse than these criminals.
The flight was never meant to be easy, and it was never meant to be singular.
And so my advice or whatever the word is you want to use is if you give in, you're worse than them.
This country and this judicial system and our law enforcement community can go back to being the premier ones in the world, but it requires a significant course.
And here's the one thing, and it goes back to the political portion of the analysis.
So many people right now, Yan, this past week are sitting there saying, Whoa, we were lied to for four or five years.
This election rigging thing isn't a conspiracy.
This Russia gay stuff is real.
And it wasn't Donald Trump, it was the FBI and DOJ and the intelligence community.
Now we have to utilize that information that we have that is now unequivocating fact to go out there and say, if you want to restore faith in the FBI and DOJ, then you need to put people in charge who are going to do that.
We have identified chapter and verse individuals that never should be in the United States government again.
Some are still serving, and they should be immediately removed.
And when you do that lift, when you undertake that gigantic measure, then and only then can you restore our faith in our republic.
And it's not easy, Jan.
And I'm sure a lot of people will say, ah, I just don't want to do it.
But to me, if you don't do it and you don't keep fighting, uh, then I'll put you in the same basket as the conspirators and criminals that committed Russia Gate at the FBI DOJ and CIA.
Basically, what you're saying, I just want to see if I got this clear, right?
That you're saying, you know, be active civically, vote, participate in the electoral process as much as you can, this kind of thing.
Am I reading that right?
Yeah, and and do so knowing that Russia Gate happened, a version of it happened again, and the next iteration is probably going on already because there was no punishment and accountability.
And so it's your job to educate the people in your community and around you about it, especially around election time.
Now we've talked about it in the past, how the House of Representatives has a responsibility here to start subpoenaing these individuals.
And they should start with the list that John Durham failed to have to even talk to, that Hans Manskey publicized.
And they should add Gina Haskell to that list as a former station chief in London who allowed the Russia Gate narrative to be launched and who permitted the 51 Intel letter to be penned on her watch as director of the CIA.
It should also include the likes of Chris Ray.
And that's not it.
The list must continue to be added.
Peter Strack must testify.
Andy McKay, James Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Lisa Page, Fusion GPS, Michael Sussman, Mark Olias, Bruce and Nelly Orr.
There is an intense list of individuals who have lied and broke their oaths of office and the law in the service of this country.
The very least the United States Congress can do is subpoena them and make them testify before the public so that we can continue the civics process, Jan, that you and I are discussing now, because we are not going to get it from the FBI and DOJ.
So, Cash, this concept of civic engagement, which you're talking about here has been coming up again and again in both American Thought Leaders episodes and other writing that we've been doing here at the Epic Times.
So I'll kind of put my stamp of approval on that one.
And I think it's time for our shout-out.
Indeed it is, Jan.
And this week's shout-out goes to Rory Rea.
Thanks so much for your comments on our quote board at Cash's Corner.
Thanks so much for everybody who leaves commentary and questions there.
We read them all, and I know Jan and I learned from you as much as you learn from us.
We also appreciate everybody that participated in the live chat on Friday night as Cash's Corner airs weekly.
