In this Season 7 finale of Kash’s Corner, we take a look at John Durham’s recent testimony in Congress and Hunter Biden reaching a deal to plead guilty to tax charges—exactly as Kash Patel predicted on the show in early May.What have we learned from this six-year investigation into the Russiagate saga? What key question did special counsel John Durham fail to properly answer? And why didn’t Congress press him on it?Did Hunter Biden receive preferential treatment? What does his pretrial diversion agreement mean?This is the Season 7 finale of Kash’s Corner. We’ll be back in a few weeks!
Today's episode is the last episode of season seven.
I can't believe I'm saying that out loud.
Thank you so much to our entire audience and fan base for watching the show that Jan and I put together every week with our incredible team at Epoch TV and Epoch Times.
We're very appreciative.
And we have no better subject to end season seven with than of course John Durham and his final report and the update on Hunter Biden and what he's been charged with and where the road goes from here.
Jan, it's a coin toss.
Where do you want to go?
I think let's start with the Hunter Biden plea deal.
Because, you know, at least in part, at least in part, you seem to have called it back on May 5th that there would be some kind of what many are calling a sweetheart deal.
And the prediction I have made is that I believe Hunter Biden will be charged and soon.
But I think they'll roll it up into what we call this global plea agreement, where he basically gets charged with some Mickey Mouse lower level offenses, walks into a super light sentence, and then they will cover up the cover-up.
But it's also not clear to me, and this is where I want to get you to come in here.
It's not clear to me, you know, the investigation is ongoing.
There might be other charges.
I mean, this isn't a done deal, or it certainly doesn't seem that way, and certainly a lot of people are saying that.
So what do you see happening here?
So, Jan, we did discuss this.
We did call this on the show that our audience just saw a clip from.
And if I'm being 100% honest, which is what I try to do here, I wish you were telling me how much I got it wrong.
Because then I would be able to sit here today and tell you we are restoring our singular system of justice rather than bifurcating it even further.
And that, to me, is a sum and substance of what happened with how Hunter Biden was treated by the Department of Justice and FBI and how so many others have been treated.
And I hearken back to my days as a federal public defender.
I dealt with hundreds of gun charges in federal court for indigent clients, most of whom were minorities, when I was in the Southern District of Florida down in Miami.
And not one time did I ever receive the request to get pretrial diversion, and we'll get to that in a second, for any of my indigent clients charged with a gun crime related to a narcotics issue.
Not once.
The average sentence for these defendants that I represented was three to five years in federal prison.
And people might be like, wow, that's excessive.
Well, when you look at it from a neutral standpoint, that's what Congress intended.
Guns and drugs should never go together.
And when they do, and you break the law, you should go to prison for a really long time.
It kind of makes sense when you simplify it like that.
But if you're going to treat everyone differently, or treat a group of people the same, and then one person comes along and you give them a literal get out of jail free pass, that I think to me is a bigger issue than the rest of the Hunter Biden investigation and the tax stuff.
And we'll talk about that real quickly.
But pretrial diversion.
Okay, what is it?
This is a kicker for our audience that I think they really need to tune into.
Hunter Biden will never be charged in federal court with any gun crime or any crime related to narcotics.
That is what pretrial diversion is.
It literally means the courts and the judges will never see Hunter Biden on the gun or drug charge.
He will be diverted out, and it's a matter that can only be adjudicated by the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General's office.
Because you're literally giving him a free pass if the defendant completes certain classes and stays out of trouble and effectively is on probation of the sorts for a period of, I think it's six to 12 months, sometimes maybe longer.
Then that's it.
Then it evaporates.
It's like it never was there.
So it's not even he goes into court and pleads not guilty, then changes his plea, then he says, I'm guilty, then he has a conviction, which would be a felony.
He doesn't even have a misdemeanor conviction tied to the gun charge.
And so another interesting point is, and I want to put up for the audience, the DOJ manual, which I abided by as a federal prosecutor.
I want to talk about the Ashcroft memo in a second, but first I want to talk about pretrial diversion.
And it specifically states, I'm summarizing, but our audience can see it, pretrial diversion shall not apply to those offenses involving firearms and brandishing them.
Literally, the DOJ's own guidelines say that.
So you cannot get pretrial diversion for those crimes.
I never did as a public defender for any of my clients who brandished a firearm.
I tried, of course, I'm a defense attorney trying to champion for my advocate.
But what happened here?
Well, there's an exception in that regulation.
It says, in small writing, unless the Deputy Attorney General himself or herself waives this requirement.
That's what happened in this case.
Lisa Monaco, the number two at the Department of Justice, who helped, in my opinion, launch the Russiagate narrative back in the day, is currently the Deputy Attorney General.
The special counsel, or excuse me, in this case, in Hunter's case, it's the U.S. Attorney for Delaware, had to seek approval from the DAG, as we call it, the Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco, to even get pretrial diversion for this type of case because DOJ specifically prohibited it.
Well, it's interesting to me that Hunter Biden can get this exception, but none of my clients ever could.
And forget my clients, I can't recall ever even hearing about a defendant who had brandished a firearm related to a narcotics issue, was given pretrial diversion.
So I think, unfortunately, it's a huge loss for our system of justice and rule of law.
And I think that's why, to me, out of all the Hunter Biden stuff we're going to talk about, that's the biggest issue, the biggest problem.
And this DOJ is going to come around and say politically, probably something like, look, we prosecuted the president's son, but you really didn't.
When you give him pretrial diversion, you're literally saying, I'm not going to prosecute you.
And so what are we left with?
Two misdemeanors.
So how is it that, you know, the headlines are saying that he's pleading guilty?
Well, it's to the misdemeanors.
To the misdemeanors.
Right.
You're correct.
So the two counts that the government charged him with were two misdemeanor counts related to tax fraud and tax evasion.
Time out.
Remember, the entire IRS team that was investigating Hunter Biden for tax fraud was kicked off the investigation by this Department of Justice.
We talked about it on a show some months ago.
And a whistleblower came forward, and that's the only reason we know how and why a team who had been working on this case for years from the tax professionals at the IRS was booted.
So now DOJ brings the tax case, the criminal tax case.
And what they say is, instead of charging Hunter again feloniously with a felony tax evasion charge, they hit him with two misdemeanor counts.
And that is what he is pleading guilty to per the agreement and the letters that have been made public here.
Now, I will caveat: a federal judge has to accept that plea agreement.
I don't foresee any federal judge rejecting this agreed-upon plea agreement, but we'll see.
The federal judge has no say in the pretrial diversion felony gun matter.
What they are saying in these two misdemeanor counts, one for 2017 and one for 2018, they're saying the same thing.
You, Hunter Biden, earn seven figures in salary and income each year.
Each year you're supposed to report your taxes and pay them for that seven-figure salary, which each year works out to a large six-figure amount.
People can do the math.
And so they're saying he's pleading guilty.
They're saying he paid his tax liability.
I have an issue with that because, as we've seen, it's been reported that someone in California came in and paid some of Hunter Biden's tax liability at some point.
But we're not getting the details on that.
But what we do know now is Hunter Biden will plead guilty.
And I think for a lot of individuals like myself who worked on fraud cases, tax or otherwise, evasion cases, you know, the first thing I would do as a public defender if I ever saw something like this is report to court tomorrow, refile every case that I've ever had and say, look, this is what the DOJ did to these clients, reduce their sentences immediately.
Give my client pretrial diversion.
Now, it's a pipe dream because we live in a two-tier system of justice currently.
But that's what Hunter's attorneys have worked out.
Now, Hunter Biden's attorney has said he believes this resolves all legal matters that are outstanding.
That's pretty big, right?
What about Hunter's laptop?
What about the stuff in there?
What about the bribery stuff?
What about the whistleblower?
What about the 1023?
According to Hunter's Biden's attorney, it's game over.
Now, the DOJ and United States Attorney for Delaware Weiss issued a statement that said that the investigation is ongoing.
Well, that's pretty convenient.
In my opinion, that's a red herring.
It's done so the FBI and DOJ can say, and they do this all the time, we used to do it, we don't really ever shut a lot of cases down.
They just kind of keep going.
We can say to Congress, no, no, no, the investigation's ongoing.
We can't abide by your subpoena.
First of all, that's not even the law.
They've just created this fiction that with their co-conspirators in the media, they can create a rule that doesn't exist as if the January 6th Committee didn't apply congressional subpoenas to break every process rule that was ever in place.
Now we fast forward to this scenario, and the DOJ and FBI are going to say, We know there's outstanding congressional subpoenas.
We know we're supposed to produce all these documents to you and all these committees, but we're not going to.
As Mr. Weiss has stated, the investigation is ongoing.
I think it's a complete ruse, and I don't have any faith in that whatsoever based on the handling of this case.
I also think that Hunter Biden's attorney, from a defense attorney's standpoint, would never resolve a matter without resolving the entire matter.
What do I mean?
If your client is being investigated for bank fraud and a murder and maybe some white-collar crimes, you don't just say, well, I'll plead to the murder.
You guys keep going on the bank fraud and the white-collar stuff.
That's not what a good defense.
That is the opposite of what a good defense attorney does.
You wait to have a global plea resolution for all of it, so you're done.
And so I'm more inclined to believe him than I am the DOJ and the FBI when they tell me this investigation is still ongoing.
Fascinating.
Well, of course, it's in his interest to have it all resolved, obviously.
The defense attorney would be a very successful defense attorney.
Yeah, and then he was asked on some show, you know, literally, what, do you recall ever being questioned about the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop?
And he said, no, I don't ever recall that.
Do you have any idea if Hunter Biden's laptop had anything to do with this investigation?
Was it used?
I don't.
No, I don't.
Anyone ever asked about it?
I can't recall being asked about it, to be honest with you.
I found that pretty interesting.
Either he has a terrible memory or the government never bothered to ask the defendant in this case about the laptop which contains so much evidence regarding all these issues, the tax.
We've seen the gun photos smattered across the tabloids for months and months and months.
We're not going to get into them because they're a bit too risque for Cassius Corner.
But what I will say is: okay, well then, if we're taking him at his word, so the FBI never looked at the bribery stuff, the bank document stuff, the fraud stuff, the whistleblower stuff, the whistleblower that they, the FBI, have on their payroll telling them that Hunter Biden and his father's family has taken seven figures from Chinese cutouts in the CCP.
That would be shocking.
But that would also seem to be related to how John Durham performed his duties.
And we'll get to that.
But I think that's the sum and substance of where it stands with Hunter Biden.
He'll be sentenced ultimately.
The recommendation will be probation.
The government has made that clear.
And the sentencing guidelines will be for probation since he's pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts.
So it's unlikely he will ever go to prison.
And just very briefly, like, how would a case like this normally go?
Like, in your experience?
Well, a fraud case, you'd never have an entire unit at the IRS of criminal investigators be kicked off in a fraud case.
It just, that doesn't happen.
That's not what it's for.
And remember, these guys back here, when the Democrats had the majority, hired 87,000 new IRS agents with guns.
Well, which one is it?
You know, you want more IRS agents investigating people criminally, and then you just want to pull off the group that's professional, seasoned, and career who are targeting one individual?
Can't have both.
And so I think what normally would have happened is the IRS would have been able to complete the investigation criminally with DOJ.
And at the fraud levels that I'm seeing, those aren't misdemeanor tax evasion charges.
Those are felonies.
And you would have been charged with the felony.
And as I said before, no one would ever receive a waiver for a gun charge of this fashion to outright get out of the entire judicial system forever.
I've never seen it happen.
And just to be clear, when you say forever, that means on these charges.
On this gun charge.
Right, right, okay.
Okay.
It's not like this sort of ultimate get out of jail free card or something.
Yeah, but I don't see this DOJ coming back next week and saying, ah, we found, you know, we actually did have information on this other gun and these other drugs and these other photos and this other material, and so we're going to charge you now for that.
That's the other point, Jan.
It's a good one.
They spent five years getting to this point.
Look, fraud cases take time.
I've spent years on cases.
But I don't spend five years on a case to give you pretrial diversion and two misdemeanor charges.
Something's up.
And Congress has more work to do, but if I'm being honest, I have less faith in the folks across the way than I've had in a long time.
Well, let's talk about this sort of in relation to these subpoenas that Congressman Jordan and Congressman Comer have about.
I mean, how does this impact their work?
It shouldn't.
It shouldn't impact it at all.
You know, I think Speaker McCarthy, and I'll paraphrase, said, our investigation will go on and this actually will move it along quicker because the DOJ is saying Hunter Biden's finally being charged and sentenced.
But we'll see.
I mean, they brought Director Wray to the heels of impeachment, and I think they balked too early.
I think they should have continued with that impeachment process because Director Wray still hasn't turned over the documents.
He still hasn't turned over the recordings.
He still hasn't turned over fully unredacted versions of the 1023 for members of Congress to read.
That's what the subpoena called for, and he's still in violation of it.
Yet somehow they get rewarded for obstructing Congress's constitutional oversight authority.
And people wonder why they never cooperate with Congress.
It's because Congress never calls them to account.
At least this Congress hasn't.
Other Congresses, as you've called in recent history, have taken violators of contempt of Congress and subpoenas and sent them to jail, literally.
It doesn't matter whether you like those people or not.
That's what happened under the law, because that's what the law says.
And again, it's a selective application of it.
So the two-tier system of justice isn't just in the executive branch and the DOJ and FBI and the courts and the judicial branch, but also in the legislative branch.
Well, I guess we're going to have to see what happens, right?
Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's going to be much excitement after this except in the media.
Just look at the headlines.
Some people are applauding Hunter Biden for taking responsibility, literally in the legacy media.
And other people are castigating the DOJ and FBI for its treatment.
I don't really understand, if you just look at the truth of the matter, how you can arrive at such diametrically opposing positions, unless you want to carry a narrative that you know to be false to help a political agenda.
And that's what I believe many in the media are doing.
Well, there's a lot more fodder for journalists as well as narrative creators out there now.
As of this morning, as we're filming here, John Durham, Special Counsel John Durham's, I guess it is sort of his last hurrah, testifying in this building once again behind us.
And I've been hearing a lot of, well, kind of like you just said, a lot of very divergent opinions on what happened there.
So, you know, who knows this case better than you do?
Why don't you dive in?
It's a unique time for me having launched the Russia Gate investigation with Chairman Nunes and then running it through Congress and then handing it off to DOJ to the point where they finally appointed special counsel John Durham, who I met with personally to reveal the contents of our investigation and make recommendations and referrals on where he should go criminally with the authorities of the DOJ.
And now we have here his completed investigation and his report to Congress.
So it's been quite the five, six-year journey here.
But for me, and as I've said it before on our show, I think John Durham is a career-seasoned prosecutor who knows exactly how to prosecute and has done it for 20 years for Democrats and Republicans.
And I think the one time he failed in his career was Hanau.
He missed the mark.
And I was hoping that Congress would ask him about some of those questions.
Most of the people in Congress, not surprisingly, took their five minutes of questioning to get a political headline out there.
Just dig into that for me a little bit.
What do you mean there?
Yeah, sure.
Some folks took it upon themselves to take a victory collapse for Hillary Clinton, which I didn't really understand the logic on that, but they did it anyway.
Other folks took time to personally attack John Durham and called him a hero up until his report was submitted to the Attorney General.
So they reversed course immediately because of his findings.
I don't really understand why you need to personally denigrate a man if you disagree with his professional concepts.
There's another way to do it, but that's what many took to.
Others lauded his findings that are now unambiguous.
They're not, they are above reproach.
He said the definitive word in what we found in our Russia Gate investigation.
There was never any lawful basis to launch an investigation into, at that time, President Trump's election campaign.
Never.
That's shocking.
That the FBI ginned it up.
John Durham spared no words saying otherwise.
And then he said unequivocally that the political bias that had seeped into the people at the FBI DOJ leadership dictated how they viewed the evidence or lack thereof and submitted it to a FISA court and then lied and withheld evidence from that court to unlawfully obtain a warrant to surveill a political opponent.
We've been talking about this for a long time, but the good news is on that front, that truth has finally come out and a lot of America is only hearing it now for the first time.
You know, that's just the reality.
Not everybody is like you and me and many folks around the country who participate or watch or observe this every week.
This is a once-in-a-generational reporting for them.
And so they're paying attention, which is good, because now they're going to be able to appreciate more what we've been talking about in depth, whether it's Russia Gate, Hunter Biden, President Trump, President Biden, January 6th, Impeachment 1, Impeachment 2.
All these things have a common tether, and that is the universal system of justice has been destroyed, and now you have a two-tier system of justice running on parallel tracks in diverging directions.
And I think Americans are going to wake up and be like, well, this is a big, big problem.
Because if we can't have accountability for the people in government who commit crimes, then how are we ever supposed to expect us, the public, to have trust in government, whether it's DOJ, FBI, or otherwise?
And so that's going to take time to heal.
But those were some of the characterizations that were going on while John Durham was testifying.
A number of people have said that sort of key questions, key obvious questions were not asked.
What do you think?
I think a lot of key obvious questions, maybe either they were asked and not answered, or asked and not pressed, but for me, the biggest one was: you, John Durham, a special counsel, with all the authorities of a DOJ prosecutor, including compulsory service of processing, grand juries, et cetera, to investigate.
Why didn't you compel the testimonies of people you outlined in the prosecutions you brought in Sussman, Denchenko, Klein Smith, et cetera, that were part of the conspiracy to defraud the United States at the FISA court and launch this investigation.
And I'm talking about Comey, McCabe, Strzzok, Pre-Stap, Lisa Page, Charles Dolan, Fusion GPS, Sussman's law partner, Mark Elias, and so many others.
The Ors, Bruce and Nelly from DOJ.
And of course, Kevin Kleinsmith, the guy who pled guilty to John Durham for doctoring a document and lying to the Fisk about Carter Page, the target of FISA war.
Why didn't you put him in a grand jury?
And his answer was what made me lose almost all the respect I have for his work on this project.
He said, well, you know, it's complicated.
And I'm paraphrasing.
They never really pressed it.
You Identify the failure of the FBI to interview Dolan as sort of inexplicable.
Totally agree.
As I go through your report and look, there are people who declined to be interviewed.
Not only Dolan, Danshenko, McComey, McCabe, Pre-Stap, Strzok, Page, Glenn Simpson, among others.
Seems inexplicable to me that you didn't compel their testimony.
Can you explain that?
Sure.
First, let me make it clear that It is as disappointing, perhaps more disappointing to me and my colleagues, that these people would not agree to be interviewed.
I know some of them had a lot to say publicly, but they refused to be interviewed by our folks.
Let me explain, I'm not going to speak to any particular person because I don't want to violate any rules, but let me give you the general kinds of considerations that go into these things.
First of all, the only way in which you can compel, as it were, a person's testimony would be to get a court order after somebody has asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege.
So one factor, and there are multiple factors I'll go through here, but one factor is that a grand jury subpoena doesn't give a federal prosecutor the authority to simply force people to talk about things that the prosecutor, or in this instance, the investigative reviewers might be interested in.
In order to properly use a grand jury subpoena, you need to have an active grand jury investigation that's ongoing and a reasonable belief to believe that the person that you want to have come in has relevant information about that information.
Otherwise, you run up against claims of grand jury abuse or claims of, you know, trying to set a perjury trap or other bad faith reasons.
So you can't just subpoena people to make them talk.
You can subpoena people when you believe that they have relevant information.
So that's a factor.
We also take into consideration if a person has previously refused to cooperate, they won't cooperate with you on matters, even matters that they previously talked about.
And on prior occasions, those people have repeatedly said, I don't recall, I don't remember, and so forth and so on.
You have to make this sort of prudential judgment.
Well, okay, if you were to subpoena a person because you can make an argument that they have information that might be relevant to the investigation, is it going to be worth the effort to have them come in and then repeatedly say, I don't recall, I don't recall.
You look at the most sensitive piece of information that you all saw in the classified information, right?
That source.
Mr. Comey was asked about that in a congressional hearing under oath and he didn't recall it.
So you make the decision, okay, are we likely to get something?
Mr. Chair.
Yep.
We over?
Yep.
All right.
Gentlelady from Vermont, our newest members recognize for five minutes.
Complicated.
Prosecutions are complicated.
You're talking to someone who was subpoenaed by the Department of Justice and sent to the grand jury in the Trump Mar-Lago documents case.
And I had no problems speaking about the truth, but I told them I had no interest in cooperating.
Then I hope one day my grand jury transcript is revealed.
And they told me, the prosecutors, rightfully so, they had an option, the same option John Durham had.
That's why I bring it up.
You can say, okay, you're not going to cooperate.
Thanks.
We'll move on.
No, they went back to the federal district court and said, we want you to force Mr. Patel to cooperate with us.
We're going to grant him immunity through you, the federal judge, the chief judge, which is the only way they can do it.
And that's what they sought.
And that's what they received.
And then I went in and told the truth.
And I bring that up because that's what you do as a prosecutor if you really want to put someone in the grand jury to further investigation.
And why didn't John Durham issue any subpoenas for any of these individuals?
Why didn't he put them in the grand jury and have them say, no, I'm going to either take the fifth or not cooperate?
Then go to the chief judge, as DOJ does so often, to say, we want to give them immunity.
And once they get in here, now you can tell us whatever you want.
You just can't lie to us.
And it will advance our prosecution.
That question alone was never properly asked, as far as I know, not properly answered, at least with a justification.
From a prosecutorial standpoint, that is gross misconduct to just leave people out there because they told you through their attorneys they weren't interested.
I cannot imagine a United States in which that would be the policy of the Department of Justice.
But evidently, it is and was for special counsel John Durham.
I was hoping for a better answer, but nothing like that came out.
So to me, that was the singular biggest miss because I don't know if he got tired or jaded or the media got to him or his team got worn out, but to lay it down and take a knee like that, that's what makes it so partisan.
You know, now you have people saying, well, the reason he didn't investigate them is because they were innocent.
And the other side is saying, you should have investigated them.
You told us they were corrupt.
You told us they essentially committed crimes and you failed.
So you're basically public enemy number one.
And I don't know if he cares about his personal credibility in the media.
I don't think he does.
He's pretty clear about that at one point during the hearings.
But I think of it as a almost total fail.
And I don't think Congress is going to do what it takes to pick it up.
The biggest type of criticism that I saw, you know, for people who are knowledgeable on these issues, it was like there was some other agenda.
If I can bring it all together as a theme, there was some other agenda other than trying to figure out what happened, right?
Yeah.
And that's weird to me that that's what I understood.
Right.
The salient point was not just that the FBI had no authority to launch the investigation, not just that they lied to the FISA court to unlawfully surveil a political target, but the salient theme was that the FBI agents and attorneys themselves intentionally conducted themselves in this unlawful, unethical fashion, and nothing happened to it.
It's not in question anymore that Peter Strzzok and Lisa Page and McCabe and all the other actors, Comey, et cetera, got together to get Trump a political target for reasons they literally put in text messages.
That's not a make-believe story anymore.
And I think there's people trying to either leverage that point or cover it up because they just want to run past it.
But here's what you're left with.
An FBI leadership structure that is in ruins.
It's in tatters.
John Durham made that abundantly clear.
Everybody knows that, whether you're a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green Party, what have you.
The FBI leadership team completely failed on purpose.
And the worst part of it all is, John Durham admitted there's no fix yet.
He's recommended some things that should be done, a lot of what we had in our House intelligence report in 2017, 18, but those things haven't been executed.
And I think the most ridiculous claim that I saw was a six-page letter from the general counsel of the FBI stating in response to John Durham's report that had the measures that they, Chris Ray, and leadership have now put in been in place back then, Russia Gate would have never happened.
I find that to be one of the most offensive statements to ever come out of the FBI.
Your leader, Chris Wray, was the reason the FBI covered up all of this information and wormholed it.
And now you're saying had you had the fixes that the House Intel Committee put forward, you wouldn't have covered up the corruption you covered up.
It's just another political headline from a law enforcement body, the FBI, that nukes any credibility that that institution has.
Unless, of course, you're subscribed to one political narrative versus another.
Those guys are heroes.
And we've seen what happens to the likes of Strzok and Page and McCabe and Comey, book deals and seven-figure contracts with legacy media networks and whatnot.
And they'll have those forever.
All for failing to do your job, violating your oath of office, breaking the law, and destroying America's faith in the law enforcement system.
It's pretty remarkable, Jan, that that's where we are today.
And some of the people that are now running whatever investigations we've talked about previously, President Biden's classified docs stuff, the remnants of Hunter Biden and whatnot, all those folks are interconnected through government all the way back to Russia Gate.
And just really quickly, what did you mean by they failed on purpose?
When I talk about the cabal of characters from Russia Gate onwards, it's dismissive to say they're stupid.
They're very bright people.
In my opinion, they're very evil people.
And when they put those things together, what I mean is they fail to uphold the rule of law.
They fail to do their duty.
They fail to say, we don't have the evidence to show our target is actually committing criminal offenses.
We don't have the legal threshold to go in and surveil them.
We don't have the legal authority to go in politically to investigate someone we don't want to see rise to higher office.
In those areas, they failed entirely.
And then in a larger area, they fail the American public for doing that intentionally.
You know, and I can't help but think, you know, as we're talking here, this is obviously a huge indictment of the justice system.
At the same time, there's all this essential work, like we outlined, you know, a few weeks ago on the show, that the DOJ is still doing and seemingly doing extremely well.
And, you know, I guess my concern is that the American people as a whole get just kind of down on these, I guess, essential structures in society.
I don't know how to square this.
I don't know that there is a way to do it in the near term, and maybe not even in the long term, because you can't call for a total abolition of DOJ or FBI.
You can call for it, but I don't agree with it.
I think they need a monumental overhaul, as does the FISA court, as does the 702 authorization process, as does all these other things that have come to a head.
And what happens is everybody in the media gets together and wants an over-correction, whatever side you're on.
You want to burn it down?
No, you want to defund it.
No, you want to increase it by 2x and make it twice as bigger.
And what we've done on our show, I think, methodically, Jan, is talk about specific instances of leadership that have failed, not the everyday folks that run those agencies and departments, with an exception here and there.
And I think that's what's caused us to come to this point.
And the only way, in my opinion, you fix it is you remove the leadership and you rewrite the rulebook on how those people ever got there and perform these unlawful acts and make sure they are punished for it.
But that's not going to happen with this DOJ and this FBI.
The only place it can happen is with this Congress.
And they're just not moving at the speed they need to be moving to get that job done, in my opinion.
So, Cash, I've asked you this before on the show, but today, what would be your one piece of proactive advice to the folks in that building right behind you?
To execute constitutional oversight without regard for whether or not you're going to be on a primetime news show.
To go out there and issue the subpoenas that John Durham left on the cutting board.
To utilize the powers of Congress and say you don't want to cooperate with this subpoena, we, Congress, will give you immunity.
They have that authority.
To seek the information for the American public because it is not being divulged by the Department of Justice and the FBI.
To pierce this false veil that somehow the FBI and DOJ can Heisman stiff arm Congress when they've been righteously subpoenaed for documentation exposing waste, fraud, and abuse.
To not retaliate and support whistleblowers who come forward so we know about this abuse.
These are things they can do, some of which they have partially done, but in order to bring it full circle, they need to make these government agencies come to heal.
And the only way they can do that, in my opinion, and we've talked about this before, is you take their money.
You don't take it all.
You don't defund an entire FBI or an entire DOJ.
But you ground Chris Ray's private jet that he pays for with taxpayer dollars to hop around the country.
You take away the fancy new fleet of cars from DOJ that they're going to use to shuffle around executives.
You stop the construction of new buildings that FBI, DOJ, the CIA, IC want.
And you take pockets of money that they need to operate.
I say that from experience.
We've talked about on the show when we did it during Russia Gate and got the voluminous amount of documentation.
And you don't take no for an answer and you don't allow them to play their games, their redaction games, their delay games.
Enough with the letters.
The letters work when you have a two-way street between these guys in this building and the folks that run our executive branch agencies and departments.
We don't have that anymore.
So that would be my recommendation to them.
And unless they do that soon, because what are we already in the middle of summer?
And by the time we come back for season eight, we're going to be rolling into July and August.
And then congressional break, we're not going to have much time before the next election cycle to get that done.
At the end of the day, I think the whole point is to get the truth out to the American public.
And right now, we've got minimal pieces of it and a highly politicized environment.
So I don't know.
Maybe they'll do it.
Maybe they'll surprise me.
Maybe we'll play this clip and be like, Cash, you were wrong.
Hopefully.
But it's not an enigmatic process.
It's just one that requires lawmakers in the building behind us to do what a large part of the American public wants them to do.
And I don't know.
Then there's all the politics, which I'm not an expert on.
So we'll see.
Well, Cash, end of season seven here.
It's time for our shout out.
Yeah, Jan, I can't believe it.
Season seven is over, but don't worry.
We're coming back.
We're going to wish you in advance a happy 4th of July and Independence Day celebration.
We'll be back sometime after that.
And we thank everybody for the live chat, for participating in the live show, for putting your comments on the comment board.
But we, of course, end every show with a shout-out.
And this week's goes to Caroline Hicks.
Thanks so much for your commentary on our board.
We appreciate not just your dedication and commitment to watch the show, but your insight.
Jan and I look at a lot of these comments to help improve the program, and we really appreciate everybody.
And we will see you next season, but also a special key shout-out to the entire Epoch Times staff who Jan and I rely on mercilessly to make this show a reality.
They have so much work to do on so many other programs.
