Kash’s Corner: FBI, IRS Whistleblowers Detail Retaliation; Grassley, Johnson Should Ask Durham Questions Under Oath
In this episode of Kash’s Corner, we take a look at the alarming pattern of retaliatory conduct across the DOJ, FBI, and IRS. IRS whistleblowers say their entire team was removed from the Hunter Biden tax fraud case.We also take a look at a letter from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asking Special Counsel John Durham for more details about the former FBI officials who declined to cooperate with his investigation into the origins of the Russia probe.“We need to find out why John Durham failed to call in the likes of [James] Comey, [Peter] Strzok, [Bill] Priestap, [Kevin] Clinesmith, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, and others,” Patel says. Sens. Grassley and Johnson should call John Durham to testify under oath in a publicized interview, according to Patel.Lastly, we take a look at recent reporting in The New York Times that the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation for alleged corruption was not only closed in 2021, but that all the evidence was “returned or otherwise destroyed,” the New York Times writes, citing the FBI.
We got a bunch of different topics to talk about this week.
Jan, we're gonna go with Dealer's Choice.
Where do you want to start?
Well, I think we want to follow up a little bit on the Durham Report.
It seems like Senators Grassley and Johnson are asking some questions of the DOJ.
Perhaps it's because they watch our show, perhaps they just have the same idea.
So we'll talk about that.
Let's talk about whistleblowers.
There were these pretty stark FBI whistleblower commentaries, and even your name came up in those uh in those testimonies.
And also there's the IRS team that was investigating Hunter Biden being disbanded, and then a second whistleblower coming out.
Let's talk about all of that.
Let's start with Durham, though, because that's what we talked about last week.
Let's follow up.
I like all those topics, Jan.
I'm looking forward to it.
I want to add one more quick one at the very end.
What happened to the Clinton Global Initiative investigation?
But we'll get there.
That's a very good point.
So let's let's make sure we cover that as well.
Another investigation or perhaps a series of investigations that were dropped.
So let's let's jump into the Durham report.
We have uh Senators Grassley and Johnson basically asking questions of the DOJ.
There's certain people that just, you know, declined to testify for the Durham report, and how is that even possible?
It's uh shocking for a seasoned prosecutor like John Durham to just bend the knee and say, oh, a target witness or a target of our investigation doesn't want to comply with our investigation, so we're just gonna take their word for it.
And when they tell us politely or impolitely, no thanks, that's it.
That's not how prosecutors worked, and we talked about on the show last week.
That's what compulsory process is for.
That's what subpoena power of the executive branch is for.
So I'm glad this letter has been written by Senators Johnson and Grassley, and let's put it up for our audience to see it.
I think it's very well done.
I do think it mirrors some of the aspects of our show last week, but I'm glad they're on this analysis uh train.
We need to find out why John Durham failed to call in the likes of Comey and Strok and Pre Stap and Kleinsmith and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and others.
I mean, these are critical players in the Russia-Gate investigation.
I believe a lot of them should have been targeted criminally for their unlawful conduct and lies under oath and for their conspiracy to basically commit RussiaGate.
And it's not like John Durham didn't know this or didn't have that information.
And that's why I think this is letters a right step to ascertain those answers.
But I also think if Senators Grassley and Johnson are listening, hey, you guys are United States senators.
Just ask John Durham to come in and sit down for a underoath publicized interview so the world can learn these answers.
Because here's my worry, Jan.
What it remember, John Durham's uh reports out.
His investigation's done.
There is no Moss.
And so now he must consult with DOJ and the likes of Merrick Garland before he does anything with Congress and gets their approval.
So why not just invite him, shorten the window uh for more government malfeasance from the DOJ and FBI, which is their pattern of doing that has been well established on this show.
And let's get to the truth.
So I think this is a critical step.
Um you know how surprised and disappointed I was to find out that John Durham had basically bent the knee to whatever overlords he has in the U.S. government, especially at DOJ and FBI.
And it's saddening because he's allowed the two-tier system of justice to march on, and he had the chance to break that wheel and failed.
I want to touch on one other thing here.
Uh basically, we have this great piece from Jeff Carlson in the Epoch Times analysis.
How much did Brennan Obama and Comey actually know before FBI opened the investigation into Trump?
That's the title.
But basically, Jeff is looking at the timeline, and this is a kind of an analysis in a similar vein to something you've been talking about for a few years now.
Yeah, look, I'm glad uh Jeff wrote that piece, and I think it's very well done.
Our audience should Read it.
As the chief investigator for RussiaGate, we had said time and time again during our investigation and in our reports that you know it was a lie that senior intelligence and government officials at FBI and DOJ were saying, oh, it didn't start till um, you know, the fall of 16.
Well, we knew that Christopher Steele had met with the FBI in Rome in early July of 2016.
That means someone had to pay Steele to put together the Steele dossier that he had handed off to the FBI in the beginning of July 2016.
That doesn't happen overnight.
We know who paid for it, the DNC and Hillary campaign through Fusion GPS and their crooked lawyers at Perkins Couie, the law firm for the Hillary Clinton campaign of the Democratic National Party, dropping millions of dollars to do so.
Jan, all of that takes months.
And now that we know definitively, we've known this the whole time, but now Durham has at least helped us sort of seal this one, that the Steele dossier is totally unverified, bogus, fraudulent information.
He, Steele, had to come up with this tale, this fictional narrative and put it in a format that the FBI would accept.
Now here's the kicker.
And as I always say, Jan, there are no coincidence in government.
How is it that in July of 2016, Christopher Steele is handing over his dossier to the FBI?
And the same month, July of 2016, John Brennan, then the head of the CIA, was receiving information and knew the Hillary Clinton campaign was up to a dirty trick.
How is that possible, Jan?
Of course it started before.
And what Jeff P Jeff's piece highlights is the fact that we now know it happened months and months and months before July of 2016.
And I think that's a whole separate series of questions that John Durham has to answer when he testifies under oath.
Why didn't he get to the bottom of this?
And more importantly, when Congress subpoenas these individuals, and we've made this request repeatedly, everyone that John Durham should have subpoenaed, like the list we just had up, this Congress must subpoena them.
The House of Representatives, whether it's Judiciary Committee, Weaponization Committee, Oversight Committee, doesn't matter to me, and have them testify under oath and ask them these hard questions as to, hey, you, John Brennan, how did you know in July of 2016 about the Steele dossier?
And how is it you, James Comey, said FBI main headquarters didn't receive the contents of the Steele dossier till the fall of 2016 when your agents were receiving it in live time in July of 2016?
And so I think it's critical because it shatters whatever remaining credibility these guys have, and I don't think they have any, of the likes of Comey, Brendan, McCabe, Stroch, Prestap, and everybody who tried to obfuscate and block our investigation from the beginning to say, no, no, no, we didn't know anything up until the fall, and the steel dossier wasn't even really a thing.
And then we went into hyperdrive and lied to the Pfizer court.
None of those add up, those are all lies, in my opinion.
And this is a great expose on them, succinctly done by by uh Jeff Carlson.
So I guess we'll get to see if there are further uh, you know, subpoenas sent out to bring some of these folks in for a chat under oath.
Um let's talk, let's go to a different series of testimonies that happened last week.
Um I'm talking about the FBI whistleblowers.
There were three of them talking about the reprisals against them, talking under oath, of course, uh, I might add.
And so what's your reaction to that?
Well, one, I think these whistleblowers came in and provided again credible information for the American people to see waste, fraud, and abuse, and corruption at the FBI and DOJ.
They each had methodically laid out credible pieces of evidence of different types of corruption, which we've covered in the past.
And after submitting this information, and let's just remind the audience, Jan, they the the whistleblowers that testified, that wasn't the first instance of the revelation of this information.
They had been on this path for months and months and months and produced it to Congress under whistleblower protections and under the false auspices that Chris Ray had guaranteed Congress under oath that no whistleblowers would be retaliated.
He lied, and I'll get to that later.
And so when these uh whistleblowers came forth to Congress and swore under oath uh the information that they had provided Congress in a little more detail during their Testimony, they were taking a very direct step towards executing the whole purpose of the whistleblower statutes and regulations.
And I think it's critical in government to have that.
So I think they did a very credible job of putting that information out there.
Then, of course, true to form, certain members of Congress uh didn't like the narrative that was being advanced with truth that the FBI is putting on a retaliatory system against whistleblowers, that they are putting out information that shows that the statistics related to January 6th and domestic violence uh extremists are false and they critically hurt the narrative that some on the radical left want to push.
So you have some members of Congress attacking them personally and somehow making up wholesale allegations against me.
But I guess it's not really surprising given the member of Congress that did it.
Okay, so let's talk about that.
We have Congressman Goldman kind of bringing you into this whole scenario.
Um, Mr. Boyle, do you know who Cash Patel is?
I do.
Uh have you received any money from Cash Patel or his organization?
I have.
Um, when you previously met with the majority members and or majority staff of this committee, was Cash Patel present with for that meeting?
No.
Uh, to your knowledge, has Cash Patel ever spoken to the committee members on your behalf?
Not that I know of, not that you know of.
Was anyone present for your previous meetings with committee members and staff uh on the majority uh that were not members of this committee or staff of this committee?
My counsel.
Your counsel, anyone else I don't think so.
Are you uh is Cash Patel helping you uh f finance your counsel?
Not that I'm aware of.
Uh Mr. Friend, what about you?
Uh do you know Cash Patel as well?
Uh yes.
And did you receive any money from Cash Patel?
Yes, he gave me a donation last November.
A donation?
Yes.
Are you a charitable organization?
I was an unpaid, definitely suspended man trying to feed his family, and his reached out to me and said he wanted to give me uh a donation.
Did uh did he have any uh was he present for any of your meetings with committee members or staff?
No.
Well, I'll just say uh sort of cool, calm, and collected on this one, Jan, and give our audience the facts.
Congressman Goldman, his history, I should remind our audience, previously served as senior counsel for Adam Schiff and the January 6th investigative committee, and then was elected to Congress just this last election cycle.
So that's his quick background on who he used to work for and where he came from.
And for him to allege what he said in that video is an outright lie, and it's absolutely disgusting.
One, me, Cash Patel, has never paid for testimony and individually funded any any of these whistleblowers.
Two, that insinuates, Mr. Goldman's statement insinuates that I'm going out there and proactively looking for people in the United States government and giving them money ahead of time to come forth and bring out information.
That is wholesale false.
And three, when he brings in a my a charitable foundation, which is the Cash Foundation, which has a board, which works as a 501c3 and which abides by all the laws, and he denigrates the foundation improperly, he is hurting our charitable endeavors.
And let me just make it abundantly clear.
After these whistleblowers came forth and provided testimony to Congress and information over the course of months, then the Cash Foundation became aware of these individuals, as did the rest of the world through the media.
And when they were retaliated against improperly by the FBI, and their salaries were taken, their homes were taken, and their livelihoods were put at stake for them and their families.
Our foundation was specifically set up before these guys ever became whistleblowers to help anybody that became a whistleblower who produced credible information.
And since they satisfied that, we reached out to them as a foundation.
The board made a decision and it decided to help some of these individuals financially.
And that's what happened.
Me, Cash Patel isn't paying anyone's legal bills.
That's another lie.
And the fact that you have a United States Congressman who has such a personal vendetta against me that he would make up wholesale lies, shows you the exact intent he had during these proceedings.
It was to denigrate people personally because they did not like the narrative that these whistleblowers were putting out, which were backed by facts.
And so maybe Mr. Goldman learned that from his former boss, Mr. Schiff.
That's for the rest of the world to decide.
But I appreciate you letting me just uh help clarify that our foundation's work won't be stopped because Mr. Goldman stands before the well of Congress or in a testimony setting and lies about our charitable endeavors.
You know, Congressman Goldman also uh put out a tweet basically saying that you're under some kind of investigation, and this was news to me, and I I think you would have told me.
Well, let's put the tweet up, Jan, you know, because it kind of speaks for itself.
And this, let's remind our audience, this tweet was put up almost immediately after the hearings about these whistleblowers ended.
So obviously this was something that was lingering in um his head, and and many of my uh friends have called me and said, hey cash, looks like you're living rent-free in Representative Goldman's head.
And I think the 24-hour cycle after that, I was the number one trending name on Twitter, which is surprising since I'm not even on Twitter.
But I think that shows you not anything about me, but about how much people are focused on these whistleblower investigations.
To me, that's good.
But returning to the tweet, you know, Jan, I've never been under DOJ investigation.
They've never told me that.
I've spoken with DOJ through counsel on many times, and I have not ever leaked classified information, nor would I. That's another in false insinuation and narrative that the unfortunately some individuals in the House and many in the media have previously tried to put forth, such as David Ignatius at the Washington Post with his cheeky headline when he did his expose on me that said it suggests that I might be under investigation, because that's what the radical left wants.
They want the headline.
Oh, Cash Patel is under investigation by DOJ.
It's totally false.
But let's just play this out, Jan.
As a former federal prosecutor, as a former national security prosecutor, the very fact that any individual is under investigation involving classified information, that investigation is by law classified.
So let's just play out Mr. Goldman's tweet.
Either he's lying, which I believe he is, or he just disclosed, he, Representative Goldman, at the United States Congress, in a live setting before the world to see, just disclosed unlawfully classified information.
Now the question is, how did he get that information?
Who at the DOJ, if anyone, unlawfully improperly gave it to him, or at the FBI.
And so what I'm going to do, Jan, is we will be referring through my counsel, Representative Goldman, uh, for investigation by the DOJ and FBI themselves for his possible leak of classified information.
And since he's a member of the United States Congress, and though he may think he has the ability to lie at will from the United States Congress without any recourse, since he is a member of the House of Representatives, I will also be sending a letter and referring him for investigation by the House Ethics Committee for twofold.
One, the same as DOJ and FBI.
Did he disclose classifying information?
And here's the thing, Jan.
When DOJ and FBI tells him there is no investigation on me, then the ethics committee can investigate the fact that he blatantly lied from the well of the United States Congress to the world about me and attacked me.
And I believe if he wasn't hiding behind the same thing Adam Schiff has hidden behind, which is a speech and debate clause, that is a defamatory statement that's actionable as by me as a private citizen against Mr. Goldman.
But we will be making those referrals because we will not sit by and allow such egregious and unlawful and improper conduct by a member of the United States Congress.
I guess we'll see how all this plays out, Cash.
I was also surprised to see your name trending on Twitter all of a sudden.
So let's jump to uh But I do want to thank Mr. Goldman for one, I do want to thank Mr. Goldman for one thing.
Umks to your political stunt, uh the Cash Foundation has received an overwhelming amount of support.
So we will be able to continue our charitable endeavors, which allows us to help financially active duty soldiers, veterans, children, whistleblowers, and so many others in need.
So thanks.
Well, Cash, I guess we'll see how all this plays out.
And uh, you know, maybe there'll be other whistleblowers that do indeed come out.
So, Cash, let's jump to this situation with the R IRS investigation into Hunter Biden being dropped, and you know, looks like the whole team was from what I understand.
And then now we have a second whistleblower, you know, giving us some more details.
Give me the breakdown of what happened.
Yeah, uh, I guess we continue on the theme of this show, which is the importance of whistleblower testimony, but unfortunately, we're also continuing with the theme that the United States government retaliates against whistleblowers who provide credible information if it um helps advance a narrative they don't like.
So, just a reminder, we're not sure, Jan, fully if the entire investigation was shut down or dropped or not.
I haven't seen anything publicly from the IRS or DOJ on that's on that side of it.
What has happened is this five-year investigation at the IRS, and let's just remind the audience, we are only talking about the IRS side of Hunter Biden's investigation, whether or not he's liable for uh taxes or fraud related to taxes or possibly FARA related to all that stuff.
That's handled by the IRS criminal division and the DOJ tax division together.
We're not talking about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Uh we're we might be talking about documents on it, but we're not talking about other criminal activity that may be analyzed by the U.S. attorney in the District of Delaware.
So, as we've laid out the importance of whistleblowers, first the IRS, just to get everybody up to speed, they had one whistleblower, and we'll call him the supervisor because that's how he's labeled in these uh media reportings, came out and said uh there has been for a number of years a almost throttling of the IRS's ability to investigate uh Hunter Biden related to the tax and tax fraud schemes that they were looking at.
That's pretty chilling, Jan.
And not only is that now no longer just an allegation, since you have the second whistleblower come forward, this is an individual who worked on the Hunter Biden IRS investigation for five years, he's just come forward and used to work under the supervisor, and he has laid out with detail the fact that his entire unit was shut down at the request of the DOJ.
And the DOJ has essentially confirmed that to the media.
Jan, how is it that an entire investigation, an investigative team conducting a lawful investigation can be shut down by the Department of Justice?
That question can't be answered today, but is going to have to be asked of the likes of Merrick Garland.
Another interesting point about this IRS whistleblower, the second one, is he alleges that due to the retaliation against the investigative unit at the IRS tax division, at the behest of DOJ, he, the attorney general Merrick Garland lied to Congress when he said that he would not allow any interference in the investigations into Hunter Biden.
So this puts the AG at a direct crosshair with this whistleblower.
So we're gonna see how all this hashes out, Jan.
But they, according to the press reportings through their lawyers, have provided um documented information to Congress as whistleblowers.
And they've been retaliated against, which I guess that's unfortunately the way it goes if you prove information about FBI and DOJ waste fraud and abuse that cuts against a political narrative, the people in charge of those agencies don't want out there.
So it's it's just shocking, Jan, that we have so much corruption at the DOJ and FBI, and we're we we have to jam it into one episode.
Usually this would be the story of the year or the story of the years plural.
And to me, as a former federal prosecutor and public defender, and a guy who's in government for 16 years, I'm not excited about this.
I just think it shows how much further we have to go to fix these agencies and departments, and it highlights why so many Americans have continued distrust in them.
Cash, before we continue, I want you to tell me a little bit about this whistleblowing process.
Because basically, you know, on one end, you just imagine someone coming out saying, hey guys, I know something, right?
Going to the media, going public, posting something on social media these days.
But that's not this whistleblowing process is actually a quite involved process.
Could you give us a breakdown?
I will.
I just want to add one thing, Yan, that I think is important and ties directly into your question.
So the leadership at the head of the IRS, Commissioner Worfel and his team had an interesting response to the whistleblowers' lawyers.
They said that it was improper, and they also notified the whistleblowers directly while they were providing the information up into government, that it was improper for the whistleblowers to break the chain of command, as they say, and provide this information to others.
But Jan, that's the contradiction.
How can you provide evidence of corruption that your superiors are committing to them and then say, hey, I'm gonna blow the whistle on you guys.
Who else are they supposed to give it?
I mean, do you see the conundrum that that the IRS leadership team has set up here?
And I think they've done it intentionally so.
They want the narrative out there to say, these guys broke the chain of command.
They're bad actors.
No, they're saying you're the bad actors, and they went around the chain of command because the whistleblower protection statute and regulations affords these individuals and any whistleblower in the United States government the right to directly A, call whistleblower hotlines, or B, provide that information directly to Congress by themselves or through counsel.
And in this instance, they've chosen to do it through counsel for most of it.
And so they have followed the whistleblower process.
And before the information is even adjudicated, the very people that they are saying corrupted and possibly broke the law and regulations regarding the Hunter Biden investigation are coming out in the public and saying, Oh, you broke the chain of command.
That's not how the whistleblower program works.
That's the whole purpose of the whistleblower program.
Uh, because if you're at the top, you can act downwards.
But if you're at the bottom, you can't act upwards and fire your superior, hence the whistleblower program.
So between the FBI whistleblowers and the IRS whistleblowers we've talked about today, you've seen how it's supposed to work in some fashion.
They take information, they give it to Congress, or they use their attorney, and they give it to the right committees in Congress, or there's a whistleblower hotline, or they can go to the Office of the Inspector General sometimes, which I think some of these individuals did, and get this information out there, and then they can come in and testify, like the FBI folks have done.
And what's been put out in the media is this these two IRS whistleblowers are going to be testifying behind closed doors the same day this episode airs on Friday.
So it's gonna be interesting to see the more detailed information that Congress collects from these individuals.
But that's how the whistleblower program worked.
It's not uh rocket science, it's pretty simple.
To me, to see the established pattern of retaliatory conduct, be it at the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, or elsewhere, against individuals who are bringing forth credible reporting, that in and of itself to me is grounds for dismissal of the superiors participating in this process and possibly even launching a criminal investigation.
But that's gonna be half the left to Congress because you can't have this DOJ FBI and RS investigate itself.
Um we've seen what happens when they do that.
You know, so when it comes to these three FBI whistleblowers, um, you know, who are testifying Under oath, they're making some pretty serious allegations, you know, you believe they're credible, but what would be the cost to them if they were you know lying in this situation?
Well, if any one of these folks comes into Congress and lies, then they should be prosecuted and investigated like anyone else.
And these guys know that.
They're actual law enforcement agents.
They're actual employees of the IRS and investigative criminal agents at the IRS.
So they know the consequences, and there should be consequences for anyone who acts unlawfully, Jan.
And I think they are well aware of it, and we'll see if one of these agencies or departments uses that as a missive fraudulently to continue to personally attack the whistleblowers.
Well, because this is this is sort of the point, right?
There's something very significant about testifying in front of Congress.
There's severe penalties if you're lying, but at least in theory, although we we have seen that, you know, uh contravened when it comes to uh certain high-level people.
Absolutely.
Brennan, clapper, McCabe, Strach, the list goes on.
Do you do you think that this whole sort of congressional under oath uh uh I guess the gravity of that is somehow being compromised here?
It's not only been compromised, Jan.
It shows you that the two-tier system of justice operates in the legislative branch.
Um when the radical left had credible whistleblowers that come forth that supported their narrative, they love them.
But when they have whistleblowers that hurt their narrative, they denigrate them and attack them personally and lie about them.
So you see it not just in the courts of law, but you see it in the halls of Congress.
And so there's a lot of remedies that need to be put in place that's gonna take a long time for us to get back on the level.
And uh I'm not sure that's happening in the in any time in the near future.
So, Cash, as we finish up, I do want to jump to something that you mentioned at the outset that you want to talk about these investigations into uh potential misdeeds by Hillary Clinton uh prior to 2016.
Um, that those investigations were canceled, that evidence was destroyed.
You wanted to mention this.
Yeah, so look, the Clinton Global Initiative, the charitable arm of the Clinton family, Bill and Hillary Clinton, has been under investigation for years related to fraudulent activity.
I'm not saying they did it.
Now we know, Jan, that there was an ongoing investigation of years.
What we also know, Jan, since we're talking about investigations here during this episode, is that this investigation was shut down by the Biden administration, and not only was it shut down, but all the evidence that was unearthed was destroyed or returned to the Clinton Global Initiative.
That is um calls in and of itself for what happened?
Congress, maybe you want to act, and why did the Biden administration shut down a year-long investigation and destroy evidence it had collected?
I think those are going to be some stern questions for the CGI going forward.
Again, I don't know what they did, if anything wrong, Jan, but it's not a normal practice for an investigation of that magnitude to not only just be shut down, but the evidence destroyed that uh will not sit well with many who already know that Hillary Clinton has a habit of destroying evidence when it came to her emails and
that investigation of her personal server and classified information therein.
So I think the media is gonna end up covering this.
I think Congress does need to take a look at it.
And again, maybe nothing bad happened, maybe there was no crimes committed, but those actions coupled together don't add up.
So are there any circumstances where evidence would be destroyed?
Like, you know, the sort of the implication, I imagine people would say, well, there was nothing here.
And so we we finit we ended it, and uh, you know, but this destruction of evidence piece I find confusing.
Yeah, files are closed, investigations are shut down.
We should do that all the time as a federal prosecutor.
But I never heard of evidence being destroyed.
Do you know why, Jan?
Because the invet the you use supposedly lawful investigative tactics to collect information.
And then you might use that years later for another investigation.
Or some investigation might spawn out of that six months, a year later with new intelligence you received about the old investigation.
So you don't go and destroy it.
It's literally why the FBI has files and rooms full of evidence and intelligence.
And the same with DOJ and the same with other any investigative agency.
They're not out there having a uh, you know, a bonfire with the intelligence they collected and information they collected.
So that piece, as reported out, is very troubling.
And, you know, I know Congress is already doing a lot, but maybe they can start asking questions about that.
All right, Cash, I think it's time for our shout out.
And this week's shout out goes to Ray Lynn Mathis.
And I'm going to borrow a word from her comments on the board for Cash's Corner.
She used the word honest, and that's exactly what we try to be with you each and every week.
We try to do credible reporting based on facts and leave the hyperbole for everybody else.
So thank you, Ray Lynn, for noticing that.
We really appreciate everybody's comment and participation in the live chat.
