All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 20, 2022 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
34:57
Episode 23: False Flag (feat. Kash Patel & Darren Beattie) – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The embattled Congressman Matt Gaetz.
Matt Gaetz was one of the very few members in the entire Congress who bothered to stand up against permanent Washington on behalf of his constituents.
Matt Gaetz right now, he's a problem in the Democratic Party.
He can cause a lot of hiccups in passing the laws.
So we're going to keep running those stories to keep hurting him.
If you stand for the flag and kneel in prayer, if you want to build America up and not burn her to the ground, then welcome, my fellow patriots!
You are in the right place!
This is the movement for you!
You ever watch this guy on television?
It's like a machine.
Matt Gaetz.
I'm a canceled man in some corners of the internet.
Many days I'm a marked man in Congress, a wanted man by the deep state.
They aren't really coming for me.
They're coming for you.
I'm just in the way.
Welcome back to Firebrand.
This is going to be our biggest episode ever.
I have two of the smartest people to weigh in on the critical events that are breaking right before us.
We've got the former acting chief of staff at the Department of Defense during the Trump administration, also worked with the NSA, worked as a staff member on the House Intelligence Committee when we blew open the Russia hoax.
Cash Patel, he's the host of Cash's Corner, which is on Epic TV in collaboration with the Epoch Times.
And also, you know him well as the publisher of Revolver.News, the place that has had the most thorough investigative reporting on a lot of the events around January 6th, Dr. Darren Beattie.
And I'll start with you, Dr. Beattie, tomorrow.
Ray Epps will be given testimony behind closed doors to members of the January 6th committee.
What do you think he's going to say?
Well, I can only anticipate that he's going to say something fairly boring and along the lines of what the committee has already released to the public as ostensibly Epps' public statement, which is effectively...
I'm not a Fed, and more particularly and precisely worded, I'm not a member or affiliated with directly or indirectly any law enforcement agency.
So I think we're basically going to get an iteration of that, but they're clearly in their damage control tour, and I'm looking very carefully for any unforced errors that might result therefrom.
And it would be nice if these hearings were open to the public, if Republicans that the minority leader had put on the committee were, was able to ask questions, but it's a hyper-controlled environment.
It is an environment that Kash Patel knows well.
Kash, you remember during the Russia hoax, during the Ukraine follow-up to the Russia hoax, Committees would take testimony behind closed doors, they would leak excerpts that help them build their narrative, and then they would use that feedback loop with the media.
As someone who's actually been a part of that process, exposing that process, what do you expect broadly from this highly secretive committee and the tactics they're using to get information, but not in the most transparent of ways?
Yeah, thanks so much for having me, Matt.
Look, you know, is Ray Epps the new Christopher Steele?
I mean, that's kind of like it in a summary, right?
Remember, thanks to your courageous media reporting and interviews when we were doing the Russiagate investigation, people actually found out the nefarious nature of the FBI, Christopher Steele, and their subsource network.
But you remember what happened for the first year we went in with it?
They pummeled us.
They said, you're lying.
The FBI would never do this.
We would never drop an informant.
Paid for by the Democratic Party and lie to a federal court to surveil our opponent.
It would never happen under this America.
And here we're talking about a similar situation and Ray Epps is going before the committee.
So I just hope there's some courageous committee members in there who are going to ask, well, if you don't work for the FBI, have you ever worked for the FBI? And how about another government agency?
And have you paid others to work for you at the behest of the FBI? And what about all this information?
Where has it been recorded?
Who at the FBI? Were you working with?
And did Chris Ray know?
Did the deputy director know?
Did it start before Chris Ray?
I mean, you know these questions.
And unfortunately, they're behind closed doors.
So I doubt they'll even get asked.
And even if they do, as you said, they'll leak what they want to leak.
And maybe in a year from now, we'll be talking about Ray Epps as the new Christopher Steele.
You know, and Cash, I think a lot of people view the January 6th events through the lens of pattern recognition after having lived through the Russia hoax.
You know, we even see now in some of these Durham indictments that you've got, you've got Durham saying, well, you know, the FBI was lied to.
They were, they were the victims in all this by these crazy Russians.
And of course, you know, you and Congressman Devin Nunes did a lot of work to expose the extent to which folks at the Department of Justice and at the FBI were actually animating those lies.
And so as you've watched the reporting around January 6th and the way there has been this real deliberate effort for a regime controlled narrative, do you see that pattern recognition and some of those very same tactics they used to destabilize President Trump in office now being used to destabilize a political movement that they disagree with?
Absolutely.
And you see the same clown show that ran that operation in Adam Schiff and Swalwell and the like running this same operation today.
They ran it once, it failed.
Now they're trying to run it again.
And look, I'll give you an anecdotal example of my five hours of interrogation before the Jan 6 Committee.
You would think they would want the Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense to tell them about the National Guard authorizations, how we prepared, how we executed, how the Biden Inspector General validated our position under the Trump administration leading up to January 6th.
You'd think they want to talk about all of those things.
But what they focused on in the bulk of the five hours was not January 6th, but Afghanistan, Somalia, Mark Esper, Gina Haspel, members of Congress, and the mainstream media.
I was shocked.
Well, maybe I wasn't shocked because, you know, it is Adam Schiff after all, to learn that the select committee on investigating January 6th spent less time talking about January 6th to me than they did about Afghanistan.
And this is the event that at the year's anniversary, they continually compared to 9-11 in Pearl Harbor.
They exhibited basically no interest in when they had the opportunity to talk to you.
Now, Darren, there are two vectors here we're working.
There's the committee, but then there's also the Department of Justice.
And we've seen a Department of Justice go from a state of slumber, as it relates to a lot of these organizers, to a state of great activity and animation regarding Stuart Rhodes, who really was a partner of Ray Epps and the Oath Keepers organization.
Can you break down for the viewers from your reporting on Stuart Rhodes to now Stuart Rhodes' arrest and indictment and fill in some of the holes that don't make a lot of sense?
Yes, I'd love to do that.
But first, very quickly, some words on Epps because I see how it's being reported and some people are reporting, oh, the reason that Epps' face was taken off the FBI's most wanted list is that he called the FBI in early January and they talked to him like January 8th, I think it is.
And then on that basis, they took his name off.
The only problem is they waited like six months to take his name off.
So the timeline is still very bizarre.
It was the case that he called them up and on the basis of that conversation, they were satisfied and they took his name off.
Why did they wait six months?
Why was there no interest in this guy until basically our reporting forced the issue and made him a household name at the level of Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and everyone talking about him?
And why still is it that, you know, there's not even any prosecution, any search, anything like that?
And this bizarre sort of closed door meeting in which there's going to be a carefully manicured and precisely worded testimony that takes advantage of whatever loopholes there may be.
It's a very desperate exercise in damage control.
And to some degree, I think it's the same with Stuart Rhodes, although...
Rhodes, we've done several deep dive investigative reports into Rhodes.
I think it's a fascinating story.
Unlike the story of Epps that's so captured on video that it has an inherent virality to it, just because of how human beings process information, video is just far more powerful than the written word, in a sense, in terms of virality.
Rhodes' story is fascinating.
And basically, Rhodes' arrest for seditious conspiracy only intensifies the questions that we raised in those reports.
And just very quickly, some of those questions are, why is it that the feds were ostensibly building this years-long, deeply serious seditious conspiracy case?
They didn't even bother to search the guy.
Well, correction, they took a single cell phone from him four months after January 6th.
So they give him four months to destroy any evidence he wants to destroy.
They take a single phone, because nobody has multiple electronic devices, and then they wait another eight months Before arresting him without any search.
And for that matter, they failed to indict him on any of the lesser charges that they indicted multiple other people, some of whom were his co-defendants.
Why would they do that?
So those questions don't make any sense in light of the evident seriousness with which they take Rhodes now by giving him this big charge.
And of course, the charge comes at a convenient time just as we're moving into the Oath Keeper's trials where lawyers for other co-defendants are trying to get Rhodes to testify.
Well, and let me ask Cash that question of really litigation strategy in federal criminal court.
You know, in addition to hosting Cash's Corner on Epic TV, in addition to being a staffer on the Hill and an executive in the Trump administration over at DOD, Cash also has been a prosecutor, a public defender in federal criminal matters.
Cash, have you ever encountered a circumstance or aware of a circumstance Where someone might catch a charge to block them from being a witness, as Dr. Beattie surmises may be the case here.
Oh, absolutely.
Look, a lot of times, as a former defense attorney, you play for the lesser of the bigger evil if that's your job when you're representing your client.
And if your client can get off with a misdemeanor charge or a small-time felony where they might do a little probation and no jail time, Because once you walk them through that tunnel, then they are easily apt to be able to later say, sorry, I can't cooperate with you.
I can't be a witness with you.
I can't self-incriminate.
All these legalities kick in and it works to their advantage.
So if I was a smart defense attorney, that's what I would be looking to do is shelter some of those guys inside the laws, the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments.
And I've done it and I think they're probably doing it here.
But to Darren's point on some of these prosecutions, I don't think they're slow rolling it by any means.
I think they are doing this very methodically because this Department of Justice doesn't want to prosecute based on facts and law.
They want to prosecute based on a political narrative.
What I'm interested to see is why aren't these defense attorneys in the Jan 6 cases being given the thousands of hours of video and discovery as you and I both know are so critical to these cases.
And as you and I went through, Matt, what do they got to hide?
Remember when we caught the Department of Defense not burying, but intentionally burying exculpatory evidence against so many people during Russiagate?
Can you imagine if they did it again?
And it looks like that might be the case.
They need to be turning this discovery over to the American people, including the witness list, so you can actually compose a defense that the Constitution gives you.
And they're just not doing that.
One of the most searing moments during the entire Russia fiasco was that when you caught the Department of Justice redacting information that had no legal basis to be redacted, but it was just like embarrassing to them.
Like, you know, Andrew McCabe had bought like a $60,000 desk and somehow they redacted that information.
When you called them on that, they quite literally threatened to investigate and prosecute you for engaging in oversight of them.
Do you see any parallels there with members of Congress being targeted by the January 6th committee?
You know, the people like Jim Jordan and Scott Perry, who are very vocal on election integrity issues, seem to be getting the ire of the committee a great deal more than people who just provoke or talk about these issues.
Do you think that, in a way, the strategy that the DOJ used against you, as a congressional staffer, could be used against members of Congress?
Yeah, and we don't know if members of Congress' cell phone records have been subpoenaed, their emails have been subpoenaed, their office computers have been subpoenaed.
We don't know that.
Maybe we'll find out in a year or two later when we get back to the House and we conduct rigorous actual constitutional oversight.
So I do fear that.
I do fear that this Department of Justice is carrying out political prosecutions against some people.
And it's just shocking to me that I find every week I look through the January 6th rolls and I see a 60-year-old woman with no prior records who's being detained In prison is shocking when the entire democratic platform seems to be all no cash bail.
And just these inherent hypocrisies that don't apply across the board in the criminal justice system ever are now applying in places like Congress.
And for this select committee to be targeting its political opponents, its other members of Congress and the other party, I think is outrageous.
I mean, why aren't, why isn't Adam Schiff and Swalwell and those guys cooperating with the American people?
About the parameters of this investigation.
All they want to do is come in and say, I got you.
I got him lying under oath.
Department of Justice prosecute him and then keep going.
And then we can say how Trump and his cronies corrupted the whole January 6th process.
Darren, I think you're right that tomorrow we're going to hear, you know, Adam Schiff or Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger emerge and say, aha, we've disproven the reporting of Revolver News.
Obviously, you know, this is a tactic they've used before to try to deconstruct the truth as we've tried to put it out.
What do you think are the important questions Republicans in Congress should really be asking?
Well, I think at this stage, you know, it's the question, what are they asking and to whom?
I don't think you're going to really get anything out of Epps or his attorney.
I think at this stage, it's really important to use whatever legal authority available I would try to pursue what files does the FBI, for instance, have on Ray Epps?
That would be an interesting thing, because even if Ray Epps is not taking a paycheck from the FBI, which was never what I contemplated and simply not usually how these things work, he's probably, if he's working in some capacity, it's probably as a sort of cut-out contractor work for some agency,
maybe not even the FBI. If he has a history of operating in that space, you can rest assured the FBI is going to have a lot of information on him in their files.
And I think that's something that whether members of Congress, I think additionally, defense attorneys for the January 6th defendants should aggressively pursue This information to the best of their ability and within their legal authority.
That's sort of an area that I think we might start to get some interesting information to see, even if they don't comply, to see how they stonewall it could itself be instructive.
And certainly they have to come up with some rationale or explanation as to why Epps is on this most wanted list and then off this most wanted list.
And then look, I just, you know, I don't want to get into the weeds too much, but the idea that you hear in the media as part of this fake debunking victory tour that Oh, of course Epps wasn't charged.
He didn't go into the Capitol.
Well, a great example is an individual called Thomas Caldwell, who is a veteran, military veteran, in his 60s, disabled.
He didn't go into the Capitol.
And in fact, very early on in mid-January, unlike Rhodes, who wasn't touched or searched for four months, The feds give him the full FBI raid treatment, guns pointed at him and his wife, they sweep his house, they take every bit of electronic, he ended up serving, he ended up being in solitary confinement for over 60 days, and they hit him with a conspiracy charge, conspiracy to obstruct official proceeding.
And if you look at the charging documents of that charge, The entire conspiracy, effectively, is constituted on the basis of Stuart Rhodes' statements and actions.
So here's a guy that, first of all, you look at his case and say, why the hell, if they go after him, didn't they go after Rhodes that quickly?
Because Rhodes was, you know, a much higher level guy.
But secondly, it totally puts to lie this notion that, oh, we wouldn't have charged Epps because he didn't go into the Capitol.
There are multiple people.
And in fact, one other example.
In a lot of the interesting video footage of Epps, there's one clip of Epps saying to a guy, who's another, you know, suspicious character, but that's a story for another day.
He says to the guy right at the barricades, when we go in, leave this here.
We don't want to get shot.
When we go in, leave this here.
So, compare that to the case of someone called George Tanios.
And this, by the way, in this example was bear spray.
George Tanios was an individual who was hit with very serious charges, conspiracy to assault an officer, because when his friend asked him for bear spray, he said to his friend, no, no, not yet.
And that constituted an overt act of conspiracy.
So if no, no, not yet to a bear spray is a conspiracy in this case justifying severe charges of conspiring to attack officers, why isn't it a conspiracy in the case of Ray Epps, whose activity is far more egregious, who says, when we go in, leave this here, within the context of him, you know, Explicitly advocating for this mission to go into the capital even the evening before.
So all of these sort of false excuses they have for why they didn't go after Epps for the beginning make zero sense.
They don't add up.
They're weak.
They're thin.
The only reason they're talking about him now was that we forced the issue, which we should continue to do because I think they're increasingly desperate in this damage control tour they're conducting.
Cash, you have been there in these high-intensity litigation moments with terrorism suspects.
What would you do to take what Dr. Beattie just said and actually fashion it into a legal defense strategy?
There's going to be a lot of motion practice, requests for production.
You're going to get the typical assertions of, Oh, sources and methods can't produce national security implications.
What are the kind of questions that judges are going to have to answer as the lawyers in these cases try to do what you really advised, and that is get the evidence out and in front of the tribunal?
Well, you're going to need a brave couple of folks on the judiciary, and I don't know where they're going to be coming from, but hopefully somewhere.
And what you're going to need is more than the whole classified, not classified thing, because the stuff related to January 6th, it's not classified.
It's just not.
It has nothing to do with national security interests.
There's nothing to do with it.
But they'll say it is.
They'll say it.
I guarantee you, Cash, as sure as I'm here, I'll bet you dinner that there's going to be some sort of sources and methods, national security classification, and really one of the key moments that will decide whether we break through this thing to the truth is whether or not you'll have judges that will call BS when that cloak is being overlaid, just like we just talked about with the Andy McCabe desk, right?
Where they're over-redacted.
You're totally right.
The good thing about a federal judge versus the United States Congress is a federal judge has more power than literally the sitting president.
So if you get a federal judge who believes in the Constitution and disclosure obligations under discovery to the defense, Then a federal judge could issue an immediate release of all those documents if he's working with a defense attorney who's actually practicing to defend his client in the best interest of the law.
And they should be recommended and referring to all of the contact reports, all the investigative documents, not just at the FBI. But at the DHS, at the Department of Justice, at every agency involved in and surrounding January 6th, and they should be putting those documents into the court system so that the American public can go pull them because the court filings, as you guys know, are all public, as they should be.
But I think you're right, Matt.
There'll be some DOJ attorney who screams national security, but they did that with Christopher Steele.
Remember, we were going to kill Christopher Steele if we released his name.
We were going to kill our relationship with England.
The Western European economy was going to collapse.
And it turns out the only thing we unveiled was the largest criminal conspiracy in presidential election history.
And the only people we embarrassed were James Comey, Andy McCabe, and the whole crew of Strzok and Page and those miscreants.
Unfortunately, this is looking like another retread of that great calamity that we had to endure.
And I hope Darren's hard work pays off sooner than later.
Right.
And just really quick addendum to that on the national security pretext.
So HR McMaster recently sat down with Joe Rogan, And Joe Rogan, to his great credit, has taken brave interest in the January 6th issue, even citing Revolver.
And he brought up the Fed surrection, Fed infiltration question to McMaster, who, of course, denied it, and then responded by saying, you know, there may have been some weird stuff going on, but it was probably the Russians.
So there's your national security pretext there.
When and now it was the Russians.
Yes, right.
When in doubt, the specter of Russian involvement has to bar our pursuit of the truth.
And you know, the narrative they're trying to build now is one against a movement, not just against a president.
But Cash, you know these tools well.
Now it seems like a whole lot of threat construction, a whole lot of political threat construction around the American right.
As you project forward in your thinking and analysis, you know, what comes kind of next after the indictments and trials of these January 6th detainees?
Do you see this being a play in financial institutions, barring people from employment if they were anywhere in the DMV area on January 6th?
What do you think will be the next iteration of national security concern that we'll all have to deal with as part of the political right?
I think the right is going to have to, once we win the House and the Senate, I think the right is going to have to start all over again to do constitutional oversight to restore so many of the rights that are going to be stolen from some of these innocent individuals regarding January 6th.
And as you so squarely pointed out, it's going to affect people's livelihoods.
It's going to affect people's families once there's that conviction, right?
But then there's the appellate process and people have to stay with it.
And what Congress has to do when the Republicans have the gavels again is actually launch an investigation into how this committee went about the January 6th investigation, but more importantly, how the Department of Justice and the FBI went about investigating January 6th.
And I think what everyone is forgetting, that January 6th was a law enforcement responsibility, an FBI-led effort.
Where was Chris Wray and his thousand agents around the United States Capitol building to prevent this matter?
Why didn't anyone ask for law enforcement agents on that day?
Congress needs to be asking the FBI and the Department of Justice those very questions.
And unfortunately, it's a slow burn.
We can't do that until we get the gavels back.
And unfortunately, I also think there's going to be some convictions of individuals whose rights are going to be violated, whose due process rights are going to be violated in the rush to justice in this midterm election cycle by a Department of Justice that seems to want to politicize.
Well, Cash, you're pretty optimistic about the ability for Republicans to perform that needed oversight, but you know, you lived through the experience where you and Devin Nunes were trying to get the truth before the country and we had Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte saying, there's nothing to see here.
We just need to trust the FBI did nothing wrong and we would all be happy with what they're up to.
I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
And it was all nonsense.
It was all a construct in order to exercise their power against Trump.
Do you have confidence in the Republicans and the majority to actually be bold enough to get those questions answered?
Well, if we give you a gavel, then I definitely have confidence in it.
Or if they give me a gavel, you got to come back and be my staff director.
Not a deal.
Look, I guess I think you're right, Matt.
I think maybe it is a little, you know, believing in pie in the sky and my side of the thing, but because it was such a hard battle to wage.
But I do think there's guys like you there.
There's guys, you know, the Jim Jordans and banks of the world.
There's Scott Perry.
There's so many guys and gals that are warriors of ours in Congress.
They're just going to have to take the mantle up on their own.
And at least this time we won't have a Paul Ryan to get in our way and shoot ourselves in the foot in the face.
Well, we thought Paul Ryan was the savior from John Boehner.
It's like a backup quarterback, right?
These guys and gals who want to be speaker.
When they're sitting on the bench, you think they're going to be the savior of the franchise.
And then when they actually have the ball in their hand, you get something dramatically different.
But I think it's really important to keep talking about this because Our constituents are, the American people are.
We saw recently Congressman Crenshaw in a town hall meeting really confronted by one of his constituents about why not enough had been done to take on the cause of people whose due process has been violated.
My question is on the January 6th, what have you done to help any of these people that are being held without any due process?
There is no due process.
They're political prisoners.
Have you done anything to help, is my question.
You're a congressman that represents the state of Texas.
Is there anything else you can do?
I mean, do we throw our hands up and say, I'm sorry?
I mean, if I went and saw them, that would gain a lot of attention for me and do nothing for them.
That's the truth.
That's the truth.
If you want a performance, they can give you a performance.
Okay.
I wish I had the authority to help fighters.
We do not.
I'm not going to lie to you and tell you we have authorities that we don't.
Darren, if you've got to bet on the federal courts to get answers or Congress, which are you betting on to get the most salient points out to the public quickest?
Well, again, if you're in charge, I would be more optimistic about Congress.
But at this stage, I think the most likely vehicle for breaking this open further will come through the development of the trials, the January 6th trials in April, and for the defense attorneys to intelligently Um, use their legal authority in order to uncover some things that, you know, I don't anticipate Congress being able to do at least.
So if that's true, so if, so if that's true cash, that the greatest risk to the fraudsters in the regime Is the, the criminal process and potentially a bold judge and an innovative attorney filing the right motions.
Do you think that when those events arise, the department of justice will be really eager to give deals to people who are asking tough questions.
Whereas if you're just there getting represented by, you know, maybe a lawyer that you got assigned that might not even hope for the best for you, that, that those folks will face tougher punishment than those that are demanding the production of the records and the videos and the evidence.
I think that's a great point.
And once these cases do get to trial, and I have to remind everybody, 98% of federal cases never go to trial, literally 98%.
Less than 2% of cases go to a jury trial in federal criminal court.
So it's almost unheard of to begin with.
And the fact that so many of these cases are setting themselves for trial posture, probably as the Department of Justice, a little worried.
And I think you will see a flurry, a We're good to have that flurry of plea deals coming in the early spring of this year, because what they'll do is they'll offer people no jail time, probation, just don't say anything to the press, just let's put this one another way, and they'll chalk it up as another conviction in federal court.
That's the unfortunate reality of the situation because what you need for this entire process to actually work It's not just an innocent defendant, but a defendant willing to put it all on the line, risk years in federal prison, risk punishment to his family, risk harm to his reputation.
And that is a lot to ask of any human being, especially an everyday civilian that should never have gone through this.
So they're going to need a lot of support.
Just an addendum to that.
The famous footage of Epps, right at the site of that decisive breach of the metal barricade, of Epps whispering into someone's ear and then two seconds later that individual goes on to storm through the barricade.
That person is Ryan Samsell, and that's a very interesting story in its own right.
He was brutalized in prison, beaten in prison.
He probably made some judgment errors, to say the least, on January 6th, but nobody deserves brutal treatment in prison, which he's gotten.
And one interesting thing about him is he's actually done interviews since his arrest But the one thing that my understanding is that he's keeping very, very close to the chest, is what did Ray Epps whisper in your ear two seconds before you busted down the barricade?
Well, I sure hope that question gets answered tomorrow when Mr. Epps is there.
Who knows?
I may see him walking in the hallways, and I certainly wouldn't be afraid to ask if we happen to encounter one another.
Now, Cash has had almost every job in the government in In Congress, at the DOD, at the National Security Council, and Dr. Beattie has been fired, I guess, by now both the Biden administration and the Trump administration.
You know, I want you to be able to react to a couple things here, Dr. Beattie.
First, the man who fired you in the Trump administration, John Kelly, is now actively meeting with former Trump administration officials to try to impair Donald Trump's political fortunes and a prospective 2024 candidacy.
What was your reaction to the news that the man who fired you as Donald Trump's chief of staff and smeared you unfairly was now part of the resistance?
Well, I mean, this is nothing new.
He was part of the resistance, as far as I'm concerned, when he was working as chief of staff.
So this is just kind of coming out in the open.
It's not a surprise.
Unfortunately, it's one of many such cases, as Trump is wont to say.
There's many such cases, and that's just the way it goes.
So I hope he fails in all of his future endeavors.
And most recently, you know, I know you were very much enjoying the contributions you were making to work to preserve historical sites, to ensure that the Holocaust wasn't recast or, or put into the, the, you know, chambers of history in an inappropriate way, but that it was recognized and that it was validated.
And after your reporting, it seemed like, it seemed like when Joe Biden came in, he had no problem with you serving in that role pursuant to your appointment.
But when you started reporting on the Department of Justice and the FBI and Ray Epps, all of a sudden you are no longer worthy to preserve cultural sites.
What was your reaction when you got that notice of constructive termination from the Biden regime?
Well, again, it's, I think it's a remarkable distinction to be fired from both Trump and Biden administration.
So I'll just leave it to people determine whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
But as for the abiding issue, a lot of my friends who had appointments, they've been terminated far earlier than I was.
So in a way, it was surprising that I lasted as long as I did.
And it's only when the issue came to the fore that this guy is causing tremendous trouble for Department of Justice and SBI that kind of forced the issue.
I think part of that, it's kind of unfortunate because the board that I was a committee member of is extremely nonpartisan.
Its mission is nonpartisan.
It's not supposed to be involved in anything partisan.
And in my capacity in that role, I had nothing to do with partisanship.
So I think it's unfortunate that the Biden administration finally decided to cave to political pressure and sort of make this entity, which is very important and supposed to be nonpartisan, and that's how it's able to carry out its mission most effectively.
So I think it's unfortunate that Biden caved in and ultimately undermined the mission of this important committee.
Well, if I ever become president, I promise to fire you so that you will have the hat trick.
So that you, you know, these things really have to come in threes.
They can't just come in twos.
But Kash Patel, host of Kash's Corner on Epic TV. Make sure you watch it and always check in daily at revolver.news.
That's where the most thorough investigative reporting on these issues is happening.
Thank you both for joining me on Firebrand.
Can't wait to see what's going to happen next.
Thanks a lot.
▲
Export Selection