Kash’s Corner: Trump Indictment, Two-Tier System of Justice, and What This Means for America
On June 8, former President Donald Trump said he’d been informed by his attorneys that he had been indicted by special counsel Jack Smith as part of the investigation into his handling of classified documents.It’s the two-tier system of justice playing out yet again, argues Kash Patel, from Russiagate to impeachment No. 1 to impeachment No. 2 to the weaponization of the Jan. 6 committee to the cover-up of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. What does all this mean for America?Kash Patel and Jan Jekielek sit down for a live show of Kash’s Corner in Prescott, Arizona.
Hey everybody and welcome to an extremely special episode of Cash's Corner live from Prescott, Arizona, at our dear friends' home, the Borlands, thank you so much for having us.
We have a live audience here.
We're streaming live right now.
We're gonna replay at the regular time, 8 p.m.
Eastern, and we're gonna take questions from our audience.
So, Jan, I think we need some mega sized news for this mega sized episode of Cash's Corner.
Do you have any?
Well, not two hours ago, the Trump indictment was unsealed, kind of throwing a wrench into our plans for the episode to some extent, but at the same time, an amazing opportunity to get some cash thoughts caught off the presses, so to speak.
So, you know, looking at this indictment cash, we've got 37 counts in the federal indictment.
We've got 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information.
We seem to have a recording of President Trump talking about you know seek some documents are secret that he knows and you know trying to hide them.
It looks pretty scary to a lot of people.
What's your reaction to this?
So look, Yan, you know, I was uh spent time as a federal prosecutor, national security prosecutor, and also as a federal public defender in the district of uh Miami down south.
And an indictment, as every judge will read out at the beginning of every single criminal case, is not evidence of anything.
It is a charging document.
And it is a one-way street.
The prosecutors are allowed to go into a grand jury, produce evidence, and then ask a grand jury is it 51% to 49%, maybe a little more than not, that a crime may be occurred.
That's the standard.
And now, and since it's just prosecutors in the room, Jan, there's no cross-examination, there's no defenses, there's nothing like that put forward.
So indictments are meant to be scary, especially federal indictments.
I know I used to write them.
I used to write terrorism indictments.
They are meant to serve as a messaging tool, and also that we're supposed to be serious in our jobs and prosecute you with what we can actually prove.
This, in my opinion, is where this indictment goes wrong.
Well, so let's talk about the specifics that are kind of mentioned right at the beginning of the indictment, which is you know, one of the things that's mentioned is that President Trump is recorded talking about documents which he's telling people.
I think they're writing a book, um, that these are secret.
You know, don't tell anybody, you know, something of this nature.
And it looks, it looks like it should put the fear of God into people.
Well, it is done, so that's what happens.
They're like, oh my God, secret recordings.
How did this happen?
The president of the United States, the former president, the guy running for president right now, and staffers, and there are probably a legion of agents and prosecutors who've been on the job for 10 plus years each who have combined to write this one piece of paper.
So it's not like somebody wrote it last night.
This thing has been perfected word by word, period and comma by period and comma, the identifiers, the titles, and passages like the one you just cited, because they want it to have gravitas.
And what you need to actually do to an indictment once it's revealed publicly, like we had today.
We were actually going to talk about the sealed indictment process, but that's gone.
Um, now that the federal judges unsealed it, we can actually see the public's reaction to the indictment.
And that's what prosecutors look for because they want to know did we hit the wickets or did we miss?
And looking at the things that have been coming in on social media and other lesser media platforms that aren't epoch times, you see the media's response to this, and it's probably not what the prosecutors wanted, and I'm sure we're gonna get into it.
Well, exactly.
It's kind of it seems kind of muted, right?
Yeah, it's muted to it's muted to tepid, I guess, is is the way it's shaped.
Now, of course, as a prosecutor in DOJ, they probably won't comment.
Um, I'm surprised Merrick Garland hasn't scheduled a press conference as the attorney general.
Uh maybe they'll do that tomorrow, maybe they'll oh tomorrow's Saturday, maybe they'll do that Monday.
I'm not really sure later today.
But when you have a case where you charge a former president of the United States, and he is also running to be president of the United States, and we've exposed the corruption at the FBI and DOJ and outlined it on our show over the past seven plus seasons, you would think the number one law enforcement officer in our country would want to tell the public a little bit about The indictment.
Now, DOJ, in my opinion, I think was caught a little off guard when the Trump camp was notified and it was publicly reported, they went out front and center and said, We've been notified that President Trump is going to be indicted, but we don't know exactly what because the indictment wasn't unsealed yet.
I think they beat DOJ to it.
In my opinion, that's just another example of how President Trump is able to have his professionalism displayed in the media about how to basically outmaneuver it.
Because look, from his perspective, this same FBI and DOJ have been leaking unlawfully during the entire special counsel presentation of Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump when it favors their narrative.
And Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong by putting out that statement.
He was notified, like anyone else, that he had to be at an arraignment on Tuesday in Miami, Florida at 3 p.m.
Eastern.
So they went out with it.
So you think that they actually, you know, basically did this early, unsealed early with this in mind.
I think, and we were talking about this on the car ride up to Prescott.
I think that's exactly what happened because a sealed indictment is just that.
Only a judge, after a request by the prosecution, can unseal the indictment in court and then you can produce it.
Usually done at arraignment, especially in a case that's involving such sensitivities as President Donald Trump.
And I think President Trump put them on defense right out of the gate.
They were expecting to have their production, their presentation, their attorney general come out next week and say, here we are, here's our indictment, one, two, three punch.
But now I think their hand has been forced, and we got to see it early.
Well, so still in the indictment here, one of the things I didn't see mentioned a heck of a lot in there is the National Records Act, which you one would expect to see prominently.
Yeah, so let me just walk through the indictment, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this because there's so much other stuff we got to cover.
We've sp we've spent the last, I don't know, two years, what however long it's been.
This guy's been subpoenaed by the DOJ on this matter about classified documents, and President Trump has mishandled unlawfully classified documents.
And when they have their time to step up to the plate and charge President Trump with the unlawful handling of classified documents, do they?
No.
They don't.
That charge is on the books, John.
It's part of an extension of the Espionage Act.
Do you know what they use?
They reach back to an act that has been on the books for a hundred plus years.
It's called the National Defense Information Rule of Law under the Espionage Act, literally talking about charts and selling utensils.
It's so old.
And in that part of the law, and here's a kicker that most people will not cover.
The national defense information process that they charge Donald Trump with right now was written 55 years before the classified acts ever were written into Congress.
That means there was no classified information for 50 years after the NDI.
Then you have the classified unlawful handling of classified information to come under the Espionage Act.
So why did they go back a hundred plus years?
Because they're now not saying that Donald Trump mishandled unlawfully classified information, and we've talked about extensively why we believe that's not the case before.
They're saying he took stuff that maybe was classified, but maybe not, and we're going to charge him with 30-some counts.
They took each document that they felt they wanted to charge him with, and they issued a single count.
I think that's overly zealous, wildly so, and is going to backfire.
We can talk about that, but one of the big points I wanted to make was just that.
If you're gonna shoot your shot, shoot your shot.
If you're gonna kill the king, kill the king.
If you've been saying for two years Donald Trump is stealing or unlawfully possessing classified information, then charge him with that.
But we now know the rule of law because we on Epoch have so extensively put it out there.
A president has universal declassification authority, he's a sole arbiter, period.
And we'll get to the Presidential Records Act and how that applies to everything else.
I just found it astounding the irony in the indictment itself.
Not only do they go to the NDI to charge him with individual documents, but then they flip to the very end when you look at the obstruction and conspiracy charges, and they itemize he was using classified documents to do that.
Well, it's one or the other.
Both legalities can't be true in the same charging document.
Either he took national defense information unlawfully, Or he took classified information unlawfully.
They didn't charge the latter.
They settled for the former.
And we're going to get into the former and why I think it is a wildly overzealous prosecution when we talk about how Hillary Clinton was handled, how Sammy Berger was handled, how General Petraeus was handled, and we'll even talk about Bill Clinton's Soctrar case.
Well, no, I I think this is the time to talk about those things.
Because, you know, I always think back.
Absolutely fascinating, I might just mention because when you read this document, you feel, wow, these it seems like they've really covered their basis.
But then when you dig in a little bit, it doesn't, it doesn't seem quite so airtight anymore, does it?
Well, it's meant to put you on your heels.
And even as a former federal prosecutor and public defender, every time I read my any indictment, I'm like, wow, look at that.
And then you take a breath and you're like, okay, I do what I always do, which is, you know, look at it behind the words and the totality of the circumstances.
So, if you recall, I'm sure you do, um, as is everyone else, Hillary Clinton exchanged at least 36 different threads of classified information on an unclassified home cooked email server that the world had access to, and exchanged it with the likes of Jake Sullivan and Burns.
Jake Sullivan is the current National Security Advisor of President Biden.
Director Burns is the current director of the CIA.
Those three individuals exchanged, without argument, classified information over three dozen times on an unclassified server.
What did James Comey do at when he was director of the FBI?
He comes in and he says, Oh, you know, we just don't think she was grossly negligent.
What are you talking about?
Either you mishandled classified information unlawfully or you didn't.
He shifted the paradigm.
They didn't charge her with the unlawful handing of classified information.
They should have, because she wasn't a president, Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to her and a whole host of other things.
But they went to the NDI portion, the National Defense Information.
And he said, Oh, she wasn't grossly negligent, she doesn't meet the intent standard for it.
Because there is an intent standard for NDI, and we'll get to how that ties into Trump's innocence in my opinion later.
So they exonerated her.
They literally said, We're not going to charge you.
So how do you not charge her for actually not having a legal out like the Presidential Records Act and disseminating unlawfully classified information, which she did not have the right to possess, on servers that could be hacked by China, our adversaries, and anyone else.
The two-tier system of justice is now front and center for the American people to see.
When we criticize Hillary Clinton's adjudication of that matter, people thought it was a conspiracy.
Now we're stitching it together.
Well, and I I couldn't help but notice that she's got hats out.
I think I saw this on Twitter today, you know, but her emails.
So it's kind of I was actually saying that's a pretty heavy troll there.
Yeah, but her emails, but the 30,000 she deleted, so the US government couldn't look at them?
What about the destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice there?
What about how she was treated?
Her lawyers got the red carpet treatment to come into FBI headquarters ahead of time and sit down with preordained questions and answers so that they could uh adjudicate their answers based on basically a wink and a nod.
They didn't do that for President Trump.
Two-tier system of justice.
And then we have we'll we'll quickly go through Sandy Berger and Petraeus.
Sandy Berger was a national security advisor, I think to Bill Clinton, if I have it correct.
This guy was literally in the National Archives building stuffing his pants with classified information.
No, I'm not making this up.
They caught him.
He was never charged with the unlawful possession of classified information at a felony level.
Petraeus.
This is not a knock on his storied career as an Army general.
He was caught with reams of classified information while he was the director of the CIA in the Obama administration that he'd handed over to his mistress so she could write a book.
He also not president and guided by the Presidential Records Act, literally disseminated, took and stole and gave it to a private citizen so she could write a book.
Gets caught, lies about it.
The FBI interviews him at CIA headquarters.
This is all in the court pleadings, and asks him flat out, General, did you take this material?
He said no.
No obstruction of justice count, no lying to federal officers, no felonies for prosecution for possessing unlawfully classified information and stealing it.
Do you know what he got?
He pled guilty to a misdemeanor.
So, two tier system of justice.
And then finally, I want to close with more of a legality approach, this entire thing.
The Presidential Records Act.
Let's set the sequential stage.
National defense information goes back, as we said, like 100 plus years.
Then, 50 years after that, you have the classification acts that come in that actually classify information.
So you can't retroactively prosecute people before 1951, right?
That's why this DOJ went 120 years back.
Because they fumbled on the classification issue because they can't legally prosecute him.
Okay, so what comes next?
NDI, classification statutes, Presidential Records Act.
If I have my math right, it was passed right around the Carter administration and really went into effect during the Reagan administration.
And what Congress said was simple.
When you're president and you leave, you can take whatever you want.
And when you take it, whether it's classified or not, it's yours.
Personal property.
Bush has done it, Bush won, Clinton, Obama, and President Trump did it.
The case that I want to highlight is a federal court case involving Bill Clinton's sock drawer.
He literally had secret tapes that he took and lawfully, I will admit, lawfully took out of the White House when he was leaving after he was president and hit him in a sock drawer.
The National Archives tried to get it back and DOJ.
They went to federal court.
Do you know what the ruling was in that case?
The Presidential Records Act protects Bill Clinton from ever divulging what was on those tapes and why he took them.
He still has them, and the world doesn't know what's on those tapes and why he hit him in a sock drawer.
And under the Presidential Records Act, that's the law that was adjudicated in court.
And that law must now apply to Donald Trump across the board, otherwise there will be another split and another creation of a two-tier system of justice.
President Trump, we've seen it resoundingly.
Whether you like him or dislike him, he has said publicly over and over again through counsel and others, there's a Presidential Records Act applies to me, and also the declassification authority applies to me.
So now let's see if the judge down in Miami will apply the Presidential Records Act to nullify, I think, a bogus prosecution coupled with the President's authority to declassify things.
And then we can talk about the obstruction and conspiracy charges as they flow.
But generally speaking, Jan, if you're gonna be charged with obstructing justice, you have to be a charge with obstructing an illegality.
If President Trump did not commit these crimes, there is no obstruction.
There is no conspiracy, there is no lying to federal prosecutors or federal agents.
It all flows from that one instance.
And that's why the indictment is written in this sequential order.
Well, so why don't you spell out how the President's Presidential Records Act would actually be used to nullify this prosecution?
Simple.
Let's take the indictment on face value.
President Trump brought things with him from the White House when he was leaving the presidency.
And I believe it was either Tomaro Lago or Bed Minister.
I can't remember which one which one we went to first.
Okay.
It doesn't matter if he took a sticky note or 10,000 boxes of information.
Last count I had it, President Obama was still going through three million pages of documents he took.
And it doesn't matter what's in them either.
The same law would apply to him.
And so the Presidential Records Act is simple.
That's it.
And and here's the kicker.
Part of that act says it becomes his or her personal property.
That means it transitions from being U.S. government property to the personal private property of the past president.
That's the Presidential Records Act in a nutshell.
Basically, you're saying there would have to be a dramatically different interpretation of law here for this to make any sense.
For this to be vitiated.
Yeah.
And talk about a vitiation or cancellation of legal rights and statutes.
And the reason I set it up sequentially, you remind me of a point is if Congress wanted the classification acts and espionage acts written in the 50s to supersede the Presidential Act written after it, they would have written the Presidential Records Act differently.
The law that comes after supersedes the prior unless Congress says otherwise.
And they didn't say otherwise in the Presidential Records Act creation.
One of the parts that shifting gears a little bit that really offends me as a public defender is how easily the DOJ got the chief judge, the past chief judge of the District of Columbia, the Federal Circuit there, to rescind the attorney-client privilege that President Trump shared with his lawyer.
In the indictment, you see a uh a paragraph or two about how President Trump is speaking to his lawyer about options.
And if you know President Trump, which you know, which I know you do, and of course, I'm still a senior advisor and I talk to him frequently.
He jokes all the time.
That's his mannerism a lot.
You can't capture that in a black and white um typecast.
But let's put that aside for a second.
So they took that and they said, This we went to a federal judge, a federal judge ruled that attorney-client privilege doesn't ex doesn't apply because there's a crime fraud exception.
Wow.
You just literally told the world, DOJ, that any criminal is charged with any offense or potential to be charged, or anyone who's not even charged with an offense and has an attorney-client relationship, can't talk possible options with their attorney.
I think this is one of the things that his legal team must challenge right away out of the gate.
I don't think this is a position that can stand in the United States of America.
Our fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights in Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 10 specifically say you have the right to counsel and an unlimited right to counsel.
And what DOJ is trying to masquerade this as, oh no, no, they were they were on it in on it together as a criminal conspiracy.
How?
And so it's a devastating blow just to justice.
Forget whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
You've just literally through thrown Arctic water on the Constitution and chilled the effect of people to have conversations with their attorneys about what their options are.
And if he had actually instructed them to do something actually illegal, that would be in the indictment.
Not this other verbiage we're seeing.
Okay.
Because you don't lead with your worst evidence.
You lead with your best.
And so I think the way they've set it up, especially when it vis-a-vis attorney client privilege, is just in a shocking abdication of justice.
And yet again, you have a two-tier system of justice because I've never seen that happen.
I've seen attorney client privilege vitiated when an attorney was actually committing a crime with his counsel, excuse me, with his individual that he was representing.
And so in that instance, it's righteous.
But in this one, the facts just don't support it.
They're putting, going back to intent, right?
They're saying President Trump, Hillary Clinton wasn't grossly negligent under the NDI, but they're saying President Trump was, when he was talking to his attorney about options and joking about it, and as he does so often, and now they're saying, well, it's a different standard, we're gonna shift it around, we're gonna charge him.
I think people are seeing it.
Well, so let's finish up with the actual indictment now.
Any final thoughts on that?
No, it's you know, that they they talk about an obstruction, a conspiracy, and they talk about a couple other things that multiple lawyers for President Trump did or didn't do.
And I think the stick the sticking point for me there is how involved they were with the conversations President Trump was having with his lawyer or communications, you know, whether it's a phone call or a conversation in person or whatnot.
And I think that has a drastic chilling effect going forward on just due process.
So this DOJ is gonna have to answer for that, and I think that's one of the biggest legalities I would if I was his counsel on these cases, which I'm not, um, reach out and say, this is the first pretrial motion judge.
How could they possibly have ruled this?
I believe the district court judge who ruled on this matter got it wrong.
That evidence should be thrown out.
Well, so you mentioned something earlier which reminded me, you know, this this issue of jurisdiction, right?
So, you know, you would expect this to be charged in uh West Palm Beach or the DC or somewhere like that, but instead it's being charged in Miami, right?
Yeah.
And so first of all, how how can that be and why do you think it is?
Yeah, this is getting into a little bit of the uh you know legal nerd weeds about it, but basically, you can have you can find jurisdiction anywhere you want, but as we've known, this grand jury has been sitting investigating Trump from Washington.
Now they've had a coordinate grand jury in Miami.
And the way you get jurisdiction is just what the law says.
And President Trump doesn't live in Miami, and the events apparently took place in West Palm Beach, where Mar-Lago is, or where Bedminster is, as it was cited in the indictment in northern New Jersey.
Neither of which are in Washington, D.C. So I think, in my opinion, this is a masqueraded attempt at what we call forum shopping, trying to get the case somewhere where they have the appearance of neutrality.
But here's the kicker.
When you charge a document, the very last sheet that you submit on the indictment, and it's here for the public to see is is there a related case?
Meaning, was there a search warrant or something that preceded this indictment that a federal judge already handled?
Because if there is, it automatically goes there.
That's the law.
These prosecutors actually checked no.
There's no related case.
Well then, what was the case about the appointment of a special master from a federal judge in Miami all about talking about President Trump's possession unlawfully of classified documents?
So I think they've got an answer for that.
The answer is it's bogus.
Now here's the kicker, and maybe it's poetic justice, depending on your viewpoint of the world.
But they drew, they, the DOJ drew the same judge, Judge Eileen Cannon, who is a President Trump appointee down in Miami, Florida, who handled the special master case.
Which is a almost impossible situation.
Because what there's like 20, 25 possible judges out there or something like this.
Yeah, and I'm not saying one way or the other how Judge Cannon or any other judge would rule.
I've appeared before almost every single judge in that district.
Dozens of those judges.
And I live in Las Vegas, and those are pretty slim odds, one in 30.
But I think you might see some moves by the government to recuse this judge just because she was appointed by Trump, but I don't think that passes legal muster because that's like saying anybody who has an affiliation with any president goes before a federal district judge and says, Oh, you're out because you're recused by President X, Y, or Z. I don't think they get to that.
I don't know that that's the goal that they wanted to set out, but they're gonna say now, no, no, no, we just let the case go where it went.
But there's another reason why I think it's down in Miami, too.
Well, and this is you know, of course, this is something we've been we've been discussing quite a bit because there's a familiar face uh over in Miami that that you've worked on the other side of, Karen Gilbert, of course.
So I'm told, just like everybody else, I'm allowed to have sources, the deputy special counsel in the Jacksmith prosecution is an individual by the name of Karen Gilbert, a federal prosecutor from the Southern District of Florida, Miami.
I've tried cases against her.
I used to be an assistant federal public defender against Karen Gilbert in the Southern District of Miami.
And what is a deputy special counsel?
Well, just think Weissman and Muller.
Yeah, everybody has a number two.
And in my opinion, if this is the case, and Karen Gilbert is the deputy special counsel, which I believe she is, she is the female version of Weissman for Jack Smith.
What do I mean by that?
You can't just say something like that, Jan, and not back it up.
Okay, wind the tape back.
2009, Karen Gilbert is the chief of narcotics in the Southern District of Florida.
The biggest narcotics importation hub in the US is Miami.
And she's running the entire operation.
A physician in Miami in 2009, Dr. Ali Shagan is charged in that case with prescription drug violations.
141 separate counts.
Karen Gilbert is the supervising chief, and her two-line prosecutors are below her.
If you can believe the following, this is what she authorized.
She said, go wiretap the defense attorney's offices and phones, so we can hear what he, the defense attorney, is speaking about to the investigator for the defense attorney during the prosecution.
Don't believe me, go look at Judge Gold's opinion on the Ali Shagan case in the Southern District of Florida.
That was outed, I think, before or during the trial process.
I can't remember exactly when.
Maybe during.
And quick side note, the judge let the case go to the jury anyway, didn't throw it out.
The jury acquitted Dr. Ali Shagan of all 141 accounts without knowing that.
But going back to what I believe is the quintessential illegality of an overzealous prosecutor spying on a defense attorney unlawfully, she was about to be throttled by federal district court judge gold for allowing that type of unethical and what I believe is unlawful behavior.
And you know what she did?
What typical cowards in government do, resign from that position.
So she wouldn't get punished by the district court of the appellate courts.
And then she meandered around, and of course, like anything else in government, if you want a promotion, the bigger you screw up, the bigger your promotion.
Years later, she would come back to be the chief of the national security section for the Southern District of New York.
And now if I have it right, she's the deputy special counsel who might be the prosecutor who actually presents the case in trial before Judge Eileen Cannon.
So I think the public ought to know that if that's the case, and I believe it is.
And if they have if Karen has anything to do with this case, then there's gonna be questions that Trump's defense counsels need to be asking the court about the propriety of her conduct in the past and whether or not it applies to this instance.
And what in a case like this, you have to find out all of the prosecutors in that office.
What are their political leanings?
Who did they donate to?
And why is there a gag order from Special Counsel Smith's office preventing the release of his staff?
Prosecutors by definition are public officials.
You put your name on the indictment, you put your name on the search warrant, you present the case in court, announcing your name to the judge and jury.
And in this case, we know zero members of that staff publicly.
Our friend Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch has uh sued just today, I think, or yesterday, uh, to release the names of the staff.
And I'm not saying some of the agents who work for the FBI and others should be outed.
A lot of them do other types of you know, covert surveillance work.
We're not asking for that.
But we are asking for the prosecutors.
We we demanded them for the Mueller investigation, and we found out it was Weissman, an individual who was reversed 9-0 by the United States Supreme Court in the Enron prosecutions.
And oh, by the way, what do him and Jack Smith have in common?
Jack Smith was the public head of public security, public integrity, excuse me, at the Department of Justice.
When they charged Governor Bob McDonald in the state of Virginia, he Governor McDonald was found guilty at the trial level.
Do you know what the United States Supreme Court did to Governor McDonald's case?
They threw it out eight to zero for prosecutorial misconduct and unlawful application of the law.
That's who Jack Smith is.
Then you have Karen Gilbert.
Who else do we have?
I think we're asking fair questions.
They'd be asking it of us if it was the other way around.
But again, the two-tier system of justice allows them to participate with their conspirators in the media to leak information that's helpful to them.
And that's the other thing, actually, John.
It's been out for long enough.
We live in the 24-7 news cycle that if there were some bombshell explosion on this indictment, there's a large number in the media that would be writing it that way.
And I haven't seen one.
You know, one thing, we're talking about you know the composition of these different teams.
And I've been thinking about this particular President Trump's defense, and like it's it's actually kind of a complicated defense.
Like what kinds of people lawyers do you need to to do this properly?
So look, it yeah, it's a national security case.
Whatever, however you look at it.
It's a criminal case, but it's also a national security case.
And so, you know, this is what I would say to people who handle these types of cases.
One, you need a national security lawyer.
You need someone who's an expert in classified and unclassified documents and procedures.
You they have to have a clearance.
You need someone who knows how to attack what's called CEPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act, which is how do we, the defense, go in and get documents that are helpful to us and declassify them so we can use them at trial.
Because in order for the government to have brought this case in the fashion that it has, everything that they want to use has already been declassified.
And here's a funny side bit.
Let's see if they actually had to declassify anything that they're going to present in this case, or they're gonna take the word that the law and the president Trump, that is, had the right to declassify them in the first place.
Then you need a criminal prosecute uh defense attorney to couple with your CEPA adjudication uh process attorney.
So it's a big team.
You need people who are experts in witnesses, you're gonna need people who are experts in these specific types of crimes, obstruction, and lying.
And speaking of which, they did charge President Trump, I think if I have it right with a couple council, we call a thousand and one.
That is lying to federal officials or agents.
I find that if it wasn't so offensive, it would be extremely laughable.
This DOJ has chosen not to prosecute James Comey for lying under oath to Congress.
This DOJ has chosen not to prosecute Clapper or Brennan for lying to Congress under oath multiple times.
This DOJ has chosen not to prosecute Merrick Garland for lying under oath, and this DOJ has chosen not to prosecute Director Chris Ray for lying under oath to Congress.
But this DOJ has no problem charging President Trump with if you read the material in the indictment, what amounts to basically jokes.
And on top of that, if the if the superseding level of law that he's charged with is not an illegal crime, then he's not lying about anything.
And so to me, they've spliced the atom pretty thin on this one.
But they've dressed it up really well in an indictment that sounds like it's a boomstick.
And I think if they have the right set of defense attorneys around them, they're gonna pop it real quick.
And I don't know that this case ever gets to a jury, because in my opinion, as a former public defender and federal prosecutor, there's just too many legal questions that have to be answered by the judge before it even ever, if it ever gets there.
And there's an appellate process, which we call an interlocutory appeal process, which means there is the opportunity before you actually get to a jury that you can appeal the judge's ruling in between.
It's not done often, but it can happen.
So I think there's a lot of steps to go.
And you know, I did see a lot of commentary out there about you know the length of the trial, 21 to 60 days and things like that.
But yeah, the DOJ always says, you know, we don't participate in politics or elections.
So you charged a former president who's the front runner to be the Republican nominee to sit in a federal criminal trial for 60 days during an election season, but you're not interfering with the electoral process.
These types of opposing positions are starting to come to light.
We've been covering them for a long time here at Epoch and many other organizations.
But most of America has been lied to for so long that they said that was conspiratorial right-wing nonsense, and now they're stitching it together.
And all these same actors, by the way, one more no Lisa Monaco and John Carlin, the number two and three at the Justice Department under Garland who are running DOJ.
They were the heads of the National Security Division and a senior post at DOJ and launched Russia Gate against Donald Trump.
I know that because I was a federal prosecutor at the National Security Division working for John Carlin.
The cast of characters doesn't change.
Chris Ray covered up the entire Russia Gate scandal.
Chris Ray currently buried, as we've talked about in a previous episode, well, first lied to Senator Grassley about the existence of a source documentation, and then had to be held basically in contempt of Congress just to produce it, because he wants to cover up, I believe, more FBI corruption.
So it is rightful that America is asking the questions of the participants.
The government is demanding the credibility of Donald Trump and all of the other individuals cited in that indictment be questioned.
Well, it's a two-way street.
We have a right to know what prosecutors are working on it, have worked on it, we'll work on it.
And we have a right to know how many of those people worked on past instances of unlawful prosecutorial misconduct, and why are they on the case?
Most important, most consequential case that DOJ has probably ever brought.
So Cash, you know, normally we'd finish up here, but today we're going live.
And we're gonna pick a few uh audience questions since we can do the live QA.
So I've got um uh RAS 360 here, okay.
And the question is um, Cash, what happens with your DOD lawsuit now that you've got an okay for book go ahead.
Uh so I appreciate that.
That is actually also uh breaking news, not you know, Trump level breaking news, but uh uh my my book, government gangsters, uh the government sat on it for eight plus months, failing to release my manuscript, which I'm required to submit as a former government employee because they don't want it out there.
I sued them in federal court this week.
We won, they bent the knee, and after eight long months, we are gonna get this book to print this summer.
And do you know how many redactions after eight months and nine different agencies reviewed it?
Nine.
Nine meaningless, they were so meaningless, my attorneys literally laughed out loud and almost wanted to thank the DOD and the rest of the government for redacting those ridiculous redactions.
So it's coming.
I appreciate it.
You can get it on pre-order, but we're still having fun.
And I think it's a crux of that book is what we always talk about, Jan, the two-tier system of justice.
It's not just in DOJ, it's in the halls of Congress, it's in the administrative state, and we've seen how it's hijacked some of the people in the judiciary as well.
All right.
Another question here we go.
We've got William Spielberger.
He asks, can RICO statutes be charged even if the statutes of limitations have expired on the original crime?
Yeah, that's a complicated legal question that breaks down like this.
If a mob boss murdered somebody in 1980 and you get evidence in 2001, murder's not a good example because murder doesn't have a statute of limitations, but say committed a fraud in 80, and you got new evidence in 90 that that conspiracy has been continuing, then the statute of limitations starts over.
And so you can bring that RICO case again.
All right, Steve Florky.
How do we get rid of dishonest judges who support or just wink at this kind of corruption?
Well, there's only one way to remove any federal official impeachment.
Judges are subjected to the same scrutiny and standard as cabinet secretaries and other federal officials are.
So you'd have to call Congress and start getting a lot of people together to and have a solid justification, I might add, legally, to impeach a federal judge and remove them from office.
We got another one actually from RAS 360.
Interesting question.
Why was NARA negotiating return of the documents if the president could have them?
Well, I think your question begets the answer itself.
I mean, if the president's allowed to have them, this whole NARA thing, in my opinion, was a farce.
And remember, I was designated by the president as the as his uh presidential records act nominated nominee.
That's not the right word.
It's not coming to me at this time.
Representative.
Representative, thank you, Jan.
Um, this is why we don't do live on the air too much.
Um but uh yeah, now you don't even really hear about that, right?
What happened to all the NARA stuff?
What about the NARA representatives?
Why did NARA refer this to DOJ?
Why didn't NARA refer Hillary Clinton to DOJ?
I think we learned the truth and what the law is when it comes to NARA and the documents.
Well, you know what I think we're gonna do?
I think it's time for our shout-out.
Oh well, this week's shout-out uh on this very special episode of Cassius Corner has to go to the Borlands.
Thank you so much for inviting us into your home.
This place is awesome.
I'm moving in, but we'll talk about that later.
Um, you guys are extremely beneficial supporters of Epoch Times and my foundation, the Cash Foundation.
You do enormous work that people never hear about.
So thank you for letting us come to Prescott.
And I can't come to Prescott, Jan, without um acknowledging and thanking my good friend Mr. Miller.
I know Marsha couldn't be here today, but it's always humbling to see you, sir.
And everybody else that was in the audience.
This has been a really great experience.
And for those of you that missed it or want to watch it again, 8 p.m. Eastern tonight.
There's also gonna be the live chat then if I've got it right.
And there's an airing of this on NDTV.
So we are blasting this out there.
Let us know what you thought.
Let us know about our analysis, and let us know more importantly your questions, because Jan and I read the commentary board every week in preparation for next week.
