Kash Patel: It’s Time to Fence the FBI’s Money and Force Them to Release Document on Biden Family Dealings
The FBI has repeatedly declined a request from House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) to hand over an internal document detailing an alleged “criminal scheme” involving President Joe Biden’s family. Rep. Comer says he’s going to move forward on holding FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress.What Congress should do, says Kash Patel, is to fence the money of the FBI. “There’s a fencing process on Capitol Hill. Without getting into all the details … you can just imagine an imaginary fence goes around a big pile of money, and Congress has the lock and key. And if the FBI wants their big pile of money in this fence, they have to comply with a request from Congress, i.e. give us the document unredacted.”We also discuss former FBI Director James Comey’s response to the Durham report and recent news that the DOJ has charged two alleged Chinese agents for a bribery scheme targeting Falun Gong practitioners in the United States.The suspected Chinese agents bribed what they thought was an IRS official—actually an FBI undercover agent—with thousands of dollars, and promised $50,000 more, in an attempt to strip the tax-exempt status of an entity run by Falun Gong practitioners, according to court filings.
Before we get started, Jan, I know we have a special announcement for our audience.
Next Friday night, June 9th, we are going to be airing a live, uncut, unedited episode of Cash's Corner.
That's June 9th, 4.30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
We'll also be doing a live chat and have a live audience with us on that occasion.
That's next Friday at 4.30 p.m.
Eastern.
And of course, if you can't catch us on the live show, we will be replaying it at our normally broadcasted time of 8 p.m.
Eastern.
Well, Cash, we got a lot to talk about today.
And a lot of it, as I suppose usual, has to do with the FBI and DOJ.
So we're going to talk about, apparently, the FBI refusing to respond to Comer's subpoena.
That's number one.
Secondly, we have former FBI director Comey responding to the Durham report with something, you know, possibly outrageous.
We'll get you to comment on this.
And the third thing is I actually wanted to highlight some what seems to be pretty important and powerful work that the FBI and DOJ has done recently.
It should be a good episode, Jan.
Where would you like to kick it off?
Well, I think the big story is that the FBI has refused to comply with this subpoena from Congress.
And I just, I didn't realize that that was actually an option for them.
I don't think you're the only person, Jan, that didn't realize that was an actual option.
So let's bring our audience up to speed.
I know there's been a lot of different whistleblowers that we've been covering, a lot of different areas.
And let's narrow it down as to what this subpoena specifically asked for and what it's directed at.
So Chairman Comer of the House Oversight Committee, together with Senator Grassley, have been pretty keen on protecting whistleblowers to provide credible information.
They've also been very demanding, and rightfully so, of documentation that backs up and supports the claims the whistleblowers are making.
He, Chairman Comer, and his team have methodically laid out over the course of months the investigation into what has been dubbed in the media the Biden pay-for-play scheme.
And over time, Chairman Comer has been doing this investigation, getting documentation from the FBI, talking to witnesses and whistleblowers, having interviews conducted under oath of officials and private citizens to advance this investigation.
He's doing it very methodically in a way I completely agree with.
And like we did, like what happened when we ran the Russia Gate investigation from the House Intel Committee, you have to collect both witness testimony and documentary testimony, documentation.
And Congress is a separate branch of government, so they don't have direct access to the executive branch's holdings, the FBI and DOJ.
And how they determine what the FBI and DOJ have is through these types of investigations I've just described.
So Chairman Comer and his committee has put out a number of documents outlining nine specific Biden family members who he, Chairman Comer, through a prior investigative subpoena from Congress,
acquired banking records that showed those nine individuals have received monies from LLCs and companies with direct ties to the CCP to the tune of $10 million and more.
And this is in aggregate.
And so that's pretty alarming if the Biden family has been doing business with each other and the CCP.
But what's more alarming is were they doing it?
And this is what Comer has been looking at while President Biden has been president.
And how far back did it go?
And what Chairman Comer has told us through what we covered on the prior episode is that the money, the transactions, as we always say on our show, Jan, money doesn't lie.
And the banking transaction go back years to his time as vice president of the United States.
So he has spawned an investigation that goes back nearly a decade.
And that, to me, is the most troubling part.
And now, Jan, returning to the subpoena in question.
Let me jump in.
I'm going to read Comer's statement.
Today, the FBI informed the committee that it will not provide the unclassified documents subpoenaed by the committee.
And I'll just comment that those are documents that have been identified by a whistleblower and they're looking to get the original document from the FBI.
Now back to Comer here.
The FBI's decision to stiff arm Congress and hide this information from the American people is obstructionist and unacceptable.
While I have a call scheduled with FBI Director Ray tomorrow, so that's today as we're filming right now, to discuss his response further.
The committee has been clear in its intent to protect congressional oversight authorities and now will be taking steps to hold FBI director in contempt of Congress.
I still didn't realize that the FBI could say to, you know, its oversight body, no, we will not produce what you want.
And then the secondly, that an FBI director could be held in contempt of Congress.
So why don't you flesh this out for me?
Yeah, so the answer to your first question is they're not allowed to do it.
And the answer to your second question is, yes, they can be held in contempt.
But we'll get to that.
I just want to return real quick to the specific document because I think it's important.
The subpoena doesn't ask for the FBI's entire vault on everything Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Joe Biden's brother, family, whatever.
It asks for one specific document, what we call an FBI 1023.
That's just fancy FBI verbiage for a source or a confidential human report.
That means that at some point in time, whenever, not just in this investigation, the FBI conducts investigations through its agents.
They meet with and through confidential human sources and interact and produce investigative leads.
And they document it.
So in this instance, Jan, what Chairman Comer and Senator Grassley have been saying is they have had whistleblowers come forward from the FBI and DOJ and elsewhere and tell them that this document specifically exists.
That means they have firsthand knowledge of this source reporting that the FBI has documented.
And I would note that we are not talking about a classified document.
How do we know that?
Chairman Comer and Senator Grassley have informed the FBI that this document is in fact unclassified.
And the FBI has confirmed that the document is unclassified.
And so I highlight that because the FBI and DOJ have a habit of going back and putting up a protection wall to sort of stiff arm Congress, to borrow from Chairman Comer's language, to say, oh no, classified information, we can't give you any of that, which is a total farce.
But now we don't even have that layer.
And if you recall, Jan, we did this similar play when I was running the Russiagate investigation with Chairman Nunes.
We were the first ones in Congress to subpoena the FBI 1023s on Christopher Steele.
And do you recall what happened, Jan, when we issued those subpoenas?
The FBI and the media came out and lambasted us.
They said we are going to ruin foreign relations.
We are going to kill people in the field.
We are going to destroy investigations.
And you know what happened, Jan, when we finally forced them to produce the documentation?
We showed the corruption of the FBI's confidential human source program to cover up the FBI's corruption.
We showed its lies to the FISA court, and we basically dismantled the biggest criminal syndicate operated from within the FBI by the likes of James Comey and Company, who we'll get to in a second.
So the reason I bring that up is because we did it with a righteous investigation, and I believe Chairman Comer is doing the exact same thing.
And he's following this exact same path.
He's requested it formally via letter.
He's requested it publicly.
He's informed the public of what he's doing and why he wants it.
He's established credible whistleblower testimony.
So he's not just out there just shooting willy-nilly.
He has done this very methodically.
And now he's at the point where the FBI has for months, if not weeks, but I think it's months, Jan, refused to produce this document.
They've acknowledged it exists.
And they've told the chairman who has oversight constitutionally over the FBI and this investigation that you can't have it.
And the reason they're saying is the same, I believe, pretextual farce.
Sources and methods are going to be exposed and people are going to die and you're going to jeopardize investigations.
First of all, we now know without a doubt that you can deliver this sort of information to Chairman Comer and Senator Grassley and their team and protect sources and methods.
We've done it 100 times over in the past.
We also know that they can, and I think this is where they'll go, they'll redact information.
Here's the interesting thing, Jan, now that we're talking about redactions, actually reminds me.
The FBI usually, after stonewalling Congress, like they're known to do when it comes to oversight and production of documents, would have produced a document and we can put one up that's, you know, mostly black lines, 90% redacted, and you can't see what's there.
And then you have to fight to get the redactions removed.
In this instance, they didn't even do that.
They just said, no, you're not getting an unclassified 1023 document to further the constitutional oversight that you, Chairman Comer and Senator Grassley, have over us.
That is shocking, Jan.
They just skipped all the in-between processes.
We call it the accommodation process, where there's always a back and forth between Congress and the agencies and departments it oversees to get to this material.
And usually you can do a number of things, like we did.
We created a whole separate room at DOJ where these documents were kept so nobody could go in and out.
We limited access and worked with DOJ and FBI to do that.
This was a months-long accommodation process.
They didn't even do that in this instance.
They didn't even give the actual members of Congress the opportunity to have access to it.
So now I want to know what it says more than ever.
What Comer has publicly said about it is very limited, so we obviously don't know the contents.
But he, Chairman Comer, and his team have reported out that the document has information specifically related to payments and Vice President Biden and or his family.
That's what we know is public.
And he even provided that verbiage to the FBI to help them narrowly tailor the production.
So Comer is going out of his way to say, you don't even have to give us the whole big file.
Just give us the one that relates to this.
It's like doing a keyword search, right, Jan, in your search engine on the internet.
That's exactly what Comer did for them because he knows what's in it and he wants to obtain it properly and show the world.
I'm kind of in maybe as more of a lay person is just kind of flabbergasted at this.
You know, I suppose it's one thing to have someone that's just kind of out in society refuse to comply with something and so forth, but it's a whole different thing when it's like the head of the agency that you are providing oversight to, right?
Like you're the boss of.
What happens?
How is this possible?
Is this, what do the rules say, you know?
Well, let's look to recent history, Jan.
And we can look to both my Russia Gate investigation and then the January 6th Committee and their investigation from the House of Representatives.
So what you can normally do, Jan, is what we did.
You fight the agencies and departments.
They say, no, there's no corruption.
And you say, no, we have information that there is.
And then you get the heads together, the chairmans and chairwomans and directors and whatever.
And they sit in a room and they say, okay, let's figure this out.
Obviously, we're past all that.
So now there's basically two things that can happen.
And Speaker McCarthy has been very public about this.
He said beforehand, should Director Wray refuse to comply with Chairman Comer's subpoena, he, as the Speaker of the House, would permit the initiation of a contempt proceeding against Director Wray.
And that's important because you have to have the Speaker say so in order to initiate a contempt proceeding against a senior level official in the United States government.
And the director of the FBI would so qualify since he's the head of law enforcement.
But what I'm advising Chairman Comer, Speaker McCarthy and Company to do is to hold Director Wray in contempt of Congress.
And look to the past to see why that's possible and doable.
Going to the January 6th Committee, they issued subpoenas for two private citizens, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro.
And those individuals refused to comply with those congressional subpoenas.
The matter was referred to the Department of Justice to hold those individuals in contempt.
The DOJ ran a quick investigation and brought federal charges, and those individuals have been tried and convicted in federal court for violating a congressional subpoena after being held in contempt of Congress.
So it's a two-step process.
First, what happens is there's a referral to the entire House of Representatives.
It stays on that side of the congressional house for now.
And there is a vote, and there must be a majority-plus vote to pass the article to hold an individual, whether private citizen or government official, in contempt of Congress, like I just highlighted with they did the Jan 6 committee did with Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon.
They'll do the same thing here, supposedly, if Speaker McCarthy goes through on his word to hold Chris Ray in contempt.
Once that vote is complete, and I believe the Republicans have the vote to cross the threshold and hold Christopher Wray in contempt, what happens next?
What should happen is a referral to the DOJ.
But Jan, we've talked about it on our show at Nauseum, how this DOJ and FBI are working in concert together to corrupt the government to cover up its own corruption.
They've done so repeatedly to retaliate against whistleblowers to not obey congressional subpoenas.
So you're basically asking them to police themselves, which is a whole nother problem we'll get into on another show.
And I don't know that this DOJ, I don't believe for a second that Garland, the Attorney General, is going to go and investigate and charge his director of the FBI.
That would be what should happen.
I don't think that's going to happen, Jan.
So how do you resolve this in a way where Congress gets what it's supposed to have under its constitutional authority?
What you should do, and we did this once during Russia Gate when we had 17 subpoenas out there for everything from DOJ, FBI, CIA, and other agencies, is you do the one thing that these agencies and departments need to live.
Our money.
They are funded by taxpayer dollars.
Congress passes a budget every year to fund every facet of each and every agency and department.
The FBI is no different.
Now, I'm not saying, and I've never said this, Jan, to defund the entire FBI.
I think that is dangerous and that is rhetoric that can get us into a lot of trouble.
And it's where we are because people are calling for what I've refer to as an overcorrection due to the past misconduct and unlawful activities of the FBI, which we've highlighted.
My suggestion is there's a fencing process on Capitol Hill without getting into all the details where you can just imagine an imaginary fence goes around a big pile of money and Congress has the lock and key.
And if the FBI wants their big pile of money in this fence, they have to comply with a request from Congress, i.e.
give us the document unredacted so we can continue our investigation.
That's the fencing process that it's a little tricky.
The budgeting minutiae and maneuvers you have to take, hopefully Chairman Comer and company have set the groundwork to do that because it takes a little while.
But you go out there and you just say, okay, your 40 new escalades that you were getting, you're not getting those anymore.
Or your new government headquarters building that you wanted funded, that's on hold.
You do clever and creative things like that.
You don't defund the everyday FBI agents doing their job chasing down criminals like the majority of them do.
This is a leadership problem at the FBI.
Let me be abundantly clear.
I have never, nor will I ever attack the men and women who run the FBI every day on the ground like I did when I was there with them.
They do the job.
Unfortunately, individuals like Chris Ray and his leadership team think ironically that as the head of law enforcement in the United States of America, they don't have to obey by the law.
And that's where we are here.
And this train is hitting the other train coming in the opposite direction head on this week.
And we'll see what happens.
Now, Congress has this unique ability too, and it hasn't been used in like a few hundred years, I think, if my history is correct.
But they themselves, if DOJ won't act on contempt proceedings to charge Christopher Wray after the vote's done in the House, they can actually go out and have the sergeant-in-arms arrest Christopher Wray.
Now, that's a drastic measure.
I don't think they'll do that.
But there is that what we call inherent contempt of Congress powers.
And it's almost built for the scenario we outlined earlier where this DOJ is never going to police itself.
So it's up to Congress, who has law enforcement capabilities, to go out there, arrest Chris Wray, and hold him in contempt in a jail cell until the document's produced.
That's what would happen to any other individual who is held in contempt of Congress for failing to produce a document.
And so, Jan, that's where we are.
It's gotten to that head again.
It got there about five years ago.
And the ironic thing is, Jan, Chris Wray was head of the FBI when we were running our Russia Gate investigation.
We subpoenaed Chris Wray.
He's not new to this.
They obstructed back then.
They blocked the Bruce Or 302s.
They blocked the release of the FISA warrants.
They blocked the release of R 1023 showing Christopher Steele's corrupt FBI reporting and how the FBI was in on it.
So he's not new to this game.
He's very well versed in it.
And we were able to defeat him to a degree because we held certain pockets of money and got some of the documentation.
Remember, we still never got it all.
And that's a story for another day.
But in this instance, you're talking about one document.
And I'm guessing it's three to five pages long, maybe a little longer.
But that's it.
So they have basically gone, they, the FBI, and Chris Wray have basically said, nope, you're not getting anything.
So we will see if Congress has the gall and the audacity to take the steps that I've outlined here.
That, in my opinion, is the only way you can continue the investigation Chairman Comer is lawfully doing and provide the oversight to the American public to show the corruption at either the FBI DOJ and or the Biden family and or numerous other places.
You know, as you're describing this, I'm kind of imagining this standoff between the sergeant-at-arms and like, you know, some sort of FBI people.
I mean, it's just, it's just bizarre, right, to even contemplate such a thing.
I want to switch gears.
You know, we do spend a lot of time criticizing the FBI and DOJ on this show.
And there's a recent case that has come to our attention, which seems to be the FBI and DOJ doing things exactly right.
We've got two people linked directly to the Chinese communist regime attempting to bribe an FBI official posing as an IRS agent, basically targeting a Falun Gong-related nonprofit in New York.
It's not the only case that the FBI is working on, but it's a big one.
Absolutely, Jan.
This highlights what I said earlier.
There's so much work that DOJ and FBI need to do to safeguard our country, to shut down criminals and crime syndicates and make sure our neighborhoods are safe for our children and our youth and things like that.
This is just one example of how they do it every day.
And it's big for our EPOC audience, so I'm glad we're covering it.
And I'll just run through it quickly and remind the audience.
This comes on the heels of another prosecution in recent history that DOJ and FBI took on to take down the CCP operating police stations illegally in New York City.
And so it's good that this line of work is continuing because it needs to, it must.
It's a reason.
It's an example of why I still believe the FBI does good work every day.
It's just the leadership that destroys it.
So in this case, Jan, I'll just give us a quick summary.
What the FBI and DOJ have been working on, and it's a years-long investigation, I'll get to that, get to why in a second.
Two individuals with direct ties to the CCP actually went and conducted an operation on mainland soil in the United States of America.
And of all things, I don't know if it's coincidental or not, but I guess the word is ironic.
These guys filed a whistleblower complaint with the IRS.
And what do I mean by that?
These two individuals, and anybody can file a whistleblower complaint, you don't need to be in government to do so.
You can be a private citizen or a CCP operative, as is the case.
And they filed it with the New York office, and they said specifically, we in this complaint are alleging that a 501c3 aligned with the Fulongan practitioners is committing a crime.
Now, if it was done truthfully and honestly, then that's a righteous whistleblower complaint and you'd want citizens informing the FBI and DOJ of this thing.
What happened, what actually happened in this instance was it turned out that these CCP operatives had concocted a scheme in connection with mainland China and the government there to root out Fulongan practitioners in the United States of America and retaliate against them, as they've done so for the last 20 plus years.
That is illegal.
You cannot do that via a whistleblower complaint.
So the FBI and the IRS and the DOJ initiated an investigation.
They conducted a lot of surveillance and they followed these guys and they set up basically a scheme that continued the bribery, bribery motives that these two CCP folks had.
And what they set out to do was after they filed the whistleblower complaint, they basically met these what they thought were government officials and agents and sources and things like that.
IRS agents too, I might add, because this is, we've been talking a lot about the IRS here as well, right?
Right.
Well, they met what they thought were IRS agents because what they were telling these individuals who were actually working for the government, DOJ and FBI, was, hey, these two CCP guys are offering us thousands of dollars if we take out the Fulungan practitioners because that's what we, the Chinese CCP government, wants us to do.
So they were literally doling out money.
And it's in the complaint, a great article that Epoch wrote, if you want the play-by-play on it.
But the reason I bring this up is because these types of investigations, Jan, take years.
They also have audio surveillance of an individual from mainland China.
These two individuals here, after they made the initial inquiries and filings with the IRS and FBI and DOJ, they engaged with the informants.
And this is the righteous use of informants, Jan.
It's interesting that we're all talking about this in one episode.
And then the two individuals flew back to CCP offices in China, got audio recordings of a CCP official, and then sent that back to the investigative team.
Of course, they didn't know they were government officials and sources.
And so there's recordings of it.
And what's interesting is the DOJ has not identified the senior-level CCP official on those recordings from China.
And the reason I bring that up is because as a former federal prosecutor, you can't just use that evidence at the drop of a hat.
That information is acquired through sensitive collection that's classified.
So what that tells me is that the FBI and DOJ in this instance methodically played out a scenario where they were going to prosecute these individuals and at the same time embarked upon the declassification process that takes months and months and months because they knew they'd have to use that information not in the charging document alone but to present to a jury at trial.
And so they have thought this thing through and that's why I highlight the fact that there's a great team out there doing great cases like this.
And these individuals have been arrested and charged in New York City and federal court and they are being transferred or on the way to the detention center in New York City.
I don't believe they'll receive bond if they haven't already.
I think they'll be denied bond because they are clearly a flight risk.
But it's a great case, Jan, and it's a great instance of the DOJ and FBI doing the work they should, handling fake whistleblowers the way they should be handled, utilizing sources and informants the way they're supposed to.
And maybe Chris Ray should take a play out of the agents' playbooks who ran this operation because it was done lawfully.
Well, and you know, the thing that's also kind of remarkable to me, at least, you know, sometimes you hear a lot that things take a lot of time through government bureaucracy.
Like you said, for example, the declassification efforts can take months and so forth.
But here, from the moment that this bribe was attempted to the purported IRS agent, but actually FBI agent, by one of these purported agents, it was like a week later this complaint was filed, was made public from that last bribery attempt.
It just struck me, like, wow, this is really fast, right?
This is not the speed with which I'm thinking about things are happening.
Well, let me just give you the behind the curtains there.
That doesn't mean they were able to do all that work in a week.
What that tells me is they had preloaded all the work, the declassification, all the sourcing, all the material they would need.
And then they waited until that last overt step needed to be taken in terms of them being charged with the allegations of bribery and for corruption and fraud.
That was the overt act.
They were sort of waiting for the final payment, the money exchange at JFK International.
And then they had the complaint, the charging document, in the pipeline the whole time.
That's how it's done.
But it shows you how well government can move swiftly if they've operated a lawful prosecution.
And you know, this also highlights to me how important it is.
We've talked about this in the past on the show, the issue of focus, right?
And, you know, when you have the FBI, for example, focused on so-called domestic terrorism, which are, you know, moms and dads at school board meetings or something being flagged this way and investigate these types of investigative resources being put towards that instead of these actual serious subversion scenarios, it kind of shifts things in a direction that, I guess, as a country, we probably wouldn't want.
And it also makes me think there's probably a lot of really important, proper investigations that the FBI is doing.
And frankly, it's easy to forget about that, you know, because we're focused so much on huge problems that we're seeing in these agencies.
So let's jump to this last thing that I was going to talk about.
And this is, you know, again, kind of sometimes I just wonder at the audacity of people.
But, you know, you have former FBI Director Comey kind of reacting to the findings of the Durham Report.
And, you know, the Durham Report, we knew a lot of what was in there, but let's just say it doesn't look very good for former Director Comey.
It looks really bad.
And now he's weighing in.
What is your reaction to that?
Yeah, well, I think we should play the clip for our audience.
Director Comey was on a nationally syndicated program just this past week commenting on the Durham Report.
So let's play it.
There's nothing new in that report about the FBI.
No new facts.
He's got his analysis and his take on things.
But after all this time, there's nothing new.
And so my reaction honestly is an enormous waste of time and taxpayer money to give us the nothing burger.
This man is the biggest pathological liar to ever sit in the directorship of the FBI.
And I'm saying that on the heels of what we just talked about, Chris Ray's tenure.
And just let that sit in.
Comey was the one who launched Russia Gate illegally.
Comey was the one who unlawfully disclosed classified information while the FBI director or shortly thereafter.
Comey was the one who went to the FISA court and lied knowingly just to surveil a political target.
And then Comey was one of the many individuals who had said for the last five, six years that Donald Trump is a Russian asset when he knew for a fact he wasn't.
This man comes out on national TV after the Durham Report, excoriates his FBI, and lands a devastating blow.
And that's not my verbiage, that's CNN saying that of the Durham Report on Comey's FBI.
Devastating to the FBI, and to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump.
And he has the audacity to come out and say, I didn't see anything new.
No big deal.
Some small mistakes were made.
That to me sums up Director Comey's entire career in about 10 seconds with his own words.
And that the mainstream media and that program that aired it on allowed him to get away with it shows you how much they were in on it with Director Comey back then.
Did he even bother to read the Durham report, Jan?
How can he say there was nothing new in there when the entire world is now pivoting to the Durham Report to say the FBI unlawfully surveilled President Trump?
They never had a lawful justification for doing so.
Director Comey was the one who specifically signed off on those warrants and that investigation.
And John Durham just said, no, you didn't have the legal justification for doing so.
I mean, you can take the credibility of a guy who writes some preposterous book after he leaves the directorship at the FBI in Comey and just runs around on the media circuit, making money, making millions.
Or you can look at John Durham's work, our work during Russia Gate, and the unequivocal truth, which is that Director Comey launched illegally the biggest fraudulent investigation in U.S. history because he, the director, wanted to take out a political target.
You know, Cash, I can't help but wonder what the historical record will show ultimately about what happened with Russia Gate, the Durham investigation, and all these schemes.
I mean, I really hope we can get full transparency.
Yeah.
I hope so too, Jan.
It's going to take a lot of work from Congress, and I think Chairman Comer and the like are on the right track.
They just have to follow through now.
Well, Cash, I think it's time for our shout-out.
Indeed it is, Jan.
This week's shout-out goes to Sammy Wong.
Thanks so much for your commentary on Cassius Corner's chat board.
We look at that board weekly and we appreciate the words you use in there specifically, honesty and courageous reporting.
It's what we try to do every week on Cassius Corner.
Jan and I take a lot of time to try to deliver on that messaging, that theme.
Thanks to everybody who commented on the board.
Thanks to everybody who participated in the live chat.
And we'll see you next week for a special live presentation of Cash's Corner from Arizona.
And just a quick reminder, that's going to be at 4.30 p.m. Eastern live.
If you can put questions into the live chat and Cash and I will answer them.
And then if you can't make it at 4.30 p.m.
Eastern, we'll be able to do it as normal at 8 p.m.
