top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEPOCHTV
May 25, 202320 min read

Kash Patel: Release Full Bank Records of Biden Family; New Hunter Laptop Coverup Details

This week on Kash’s Corner, we discuss a major new House Oversight memorandum released on Wednesday. Investigators say millions of dollars from China and other foreign entities went to President Joe Biden and nearly a dozen members of his family.

New details have also emerged surrounding the origins of the “51-intel letter” discrediting the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020. The CIA expedited review of the letter for confidential information, allowing former acting CIA director Michael Morell to successfully get it published in Politico just days before the final presidential debate between then-President Donald Trump and Biden, according to a new House Judiciary report. At the debate, then-candidate Biden cited the letter as evidence that the Hunter Biden laptop story was “a bunch of garbage.”

Furthermore, the report also says that a CIA official helped recruit signers for the letter.

 

Interview traier:

 

FULL TRANSCRIPT Kash Patel: Hey everybody, and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. It has been an explosive news week with a verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case in New York, and also with Chairman Comer’s presentation of evidence and more information from Mike Morell through the House Oversight Committee and Judiciary Committees on the extent of the involvement of the Biden campaign in producing the 51 Intel letter as we call it. Jan, where do you want to kick things off?

Jan Jekielek: We already covered E. Jean Carroll with your initial reactions in some detail on our new show, American Thought Leaders Now. That’s the Epoch Times show that’s going to be coming out throughout the week with very short American Thought Leaders style episodes. But please give me your quick summary on the E. Jean Carroll case.

Mr. Patel: Absolutely. Jan, congrats on your new show, and I encourage our entire audience and everybody to watch the new show that Jan has over there. It’s going to be fun. On the E. Jean Carroll case, it was a New York case that President Trump was found civilly liable for a purported assault that occurred sometime in the nineties, even though the alleged victim in the case, E. Jean Carroll, can’t recall the year in which the incident took place. I want to just highlight a few inconsistencies with both the law and the facts and then we’ll move on.

The verdict found President Trump libel not for sexual battery or sexual assault, but for simple battery and for defamation. Legally speaking, from the perspective of a former federal prosecutor and public defender, that’s not factually consistent. How can the jury find someone who’s accused of sexual assault, guilty of battery, but not the assault itself? Are there any legal deficiencies there? This is what we call jury nullification, Jan.

It’s basically a jury disregards the facts from the law and bases a decision on emotion alone. We’ve talked about the problems of bringing cases in New York. President Trump has talked about it a lot, whether or not he could receive a fair jury, a fair trial and I think this evidence is a situation in which both the State and the private sector and the jury have combined to reach a verdict that isn’t supported by the law.

The other thing I wanted to talk about is that New York State and the law that they were bringing this under, not they New York State, but E. Jean Carroll was bringing this up was a recent change. There’s a statute of limitations on most all criminal cases, which means you have to prosecute someone criminally. This wasn’t a criminal case, but you have to within a certain time period—five, 10, 15, 20 years.

Things like murder don’t have a statute of limitations, but remember, we’re in the civil world. In the civil world, the statute of limitations is even stricter because we’re talking about monetary judgements that are at stake here, not someone’s liberties. The law was recently changed in New York to allow someone who is accusing a perpetrator of sexual assault to bring a lawsuit at any time without a statute of limitations. You could bring it 50 years later.

Remember, the reason these statutes of limitation exist is because the courts want these cases brought in a timely fashion. They’re not saying you have to bring it the next day or week or month or even year. You’ve got five or 10 years usually to bring it. So when this case goes on appeal, I think there’s going to be a lot to say from both the legal courts to say, is that law constitutional? Did the jury nullify the verdict? Did they act on the law and the facts that’s presented?

I think there’s a lot of legal questions up in the air and it should and only will be resolved in the appellate process. I do not agree with the verdict based on the facts that were put forth and the evidentiary rulings by the judge in this case, allowing matters that had nothing to do with the alleged assault such as President Trump’s statement to a sportscaster from years ago, in my opinion, only prejudiced the jury to say, “Please convict Donald Trump of this matter because he said something years unrelated to it.” That’s what we call a more prejudicial than probative piece of evidence. Anyway, lots to discuss in this episode. I just want to touch on that real quick.

Mr. Jekielek: Absolutely. If you want more details, you can look up our recent American Thought Leaders Now episode that’s in the American Thought Leaders section on EPOCH TV. Check it out.

Let’s jump quickly to this startling and new information in the report before we go to House Oversight. Basically, a CIA official helped recruit signers for this letter that basically said the Hunter Biden laptop had all but earmarked the story, so he had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation. Another startling development, it seems to me.

Mr. Patel: Yes, what you’re talking about is Mike Morell, the former acting head of the CIA, the former deputy director of the CIA. We’ve covered him extensively on how he was triggered to produce that 51 Intel letter, what I call the Steele Dossier 2.0. He was triggered at the behest of Tony Blinken. Since we’ve talked about it last, Jan, Congress has uncovered more emails that show direct engagement from Tony Blinken to the agency and Mike Morell and others about this matter, and we’ll put those up for our audience.

Tony Blinken has a lot of questions to answer because he came out and vociferously said he had nothing to do with that letter. Emails from him to the agency seem to contradict that so he’s got a big problem. Ron Johnson, the senator from Wisconsin, has called him out for lying to Congress on it at the very least.

Mr. Jekielek: What about this letter to Mike Morell?

Mr. Patel: Right. We had thought it was just that back and forth between Biden Camp and Morell, and then he just went over and got 51 signatures and put it out. But when you are a government employee, and I know this personally, and you produce a manuscript or letter or anything for publication, you have to submit it back to your home agency of last report, for Mike Morell it was the CIA, and say, “I’m going to put this out. I needed it approved.”

That is what is legally required. What’s shocking to me that I learned was, he received almost instantaneous approval, which never happens. Literally overnight. Just to give you an idea, an average manuscript takes three months. Now I know this is a letter and it’s much shorter, but it still takes months to go out because it has to go to the rest of the Intel community, not just the CIA.

They have to send it out to the NSA, to DOJ, to FBI, to DOD, and all these other agencies for equities checks. That’s the whole reason that exists. Putting aside the fact that they motored through this document to help put out a false narrative to which I think Gina Haspel owes Congress and the American public a whole host of answers as to why she, as director of the CIA, allowed the process to be broken for partisan gain.

Now we have employees under Gina Haspel’s directorship at the CIA, not only reviewing it, Jan, but taking the document and saying literally, “Look at this. I think you, the other CIA operative I know, should sign it and maybe your friend should sign it and I think this is a great idea, Mike Morell.” Of course I’m exaggerating a little bit, and we could put the letter out for itself in the emails, which we actually now have.

Essentially, the CIA is congratulating Mike Morell for putting together this document and congratulating themselves for moving it through the process with such speed and then getting other people to weigh in on it. Jan, you’re probably going to ask me, so what? What’s the big deal? Remember, since its inception in 1947, the CIA has a legal mandate to never interfere domestically, especially with partisan politics.

This letter shows that Gina Haspel’s CIA broke that mandate, that legal mandate, and did just that. Her employees went out and had signatories added to a letter that they knew contained false information that Mike Morell wanted out for political reasons at the behest of Tony Blinken, at the time then Biden’s senior campaign aide so that they could counter the narrative about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Remember, that’s what it all came down to and the timeline is critical, Jan.

The Blinken contact to Morell is in October, and in a four day span, they have 51 signatories. They have the letter approved from the CIA saying you can publish this information even though it’s sensitive. The CIA participated in partisan politics and then Candidate Biden used it in a presidential debate and said, “Our intelligence community even says my son’s laptop is Russian disinformation.” That is the definition of election rigging and there better be a whole host of subpoenas going out to Gina Haspel, her leadership team, and every one of those people that have now been identified on that email chain adding signatures to that letter.

Mr. Jekielek: I want to touch on one thing that you mentioned. You said that they knew it was false, and then you also talked about how they really fast tracked this. I do want to touch on the juxtaposition of how quickly a document like this might have gone through versus how slowly a document like your book is going. But let’s talk about that a little bit later.

Mr. Patel: Sure.

Mr. Jekielek: Right? At the moment, is there some issue there with the fact that they knew it was false and as a reminder, how did they know that and then that it was fast tracked so quickly?

Mr. Patel: That’s a great point, Jan. How is it that our intelligence agency, our lead intel agency, was able to determine overnight instantly that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation? Did they have the laptop because by all public accounts it was at the FBI lock and key and they hadn’t provided it to anyone else because it was supposedly under investigation of Hunter Biden and related evidence, and therefore they had not distributed it to anybody else. Who, at the CIA, authorized such an expeditious review?

Jan, having been in government for 16 years and having handled matters with Gina Haspel, who by the way was station chief in London in 2016, the head intel officer for the United States of America, when the FBI launched its campaign against President Trump to unlawfully surveil him and his colleagues or his campaign advisors, I should say. Remember the whole Papadopoulos incident happened in London under Gina Haspel’s watch, and it cannot happen without her saying so.

Connecting the dots from her being a political operative back then, in my opinion, to her agency continuing to be a political operative against the same target, President Trump, tells me one of two things. Either everyone at her agency was undercutting her authority and not telling her a single thing about such a high level, high octane matter, or I think the more probable and likely believable is that Gina Haspel and her CIA were coordinated in an effort to continue to target a political candidate and misuse, abuse and break the law as to the mandates of the CIA. There are so many more questions than answers I have right now, and I know everybody’s focusing on the contents of the letter and how it rigged the presidential election. But to take a page out of Comer’s book today, what’s the fix? What’s the legislative fix? How did this happen?

How did it happen in 2016? How did it happen under the watch’s director of the CIA, and how do we make sure it never happens again? We can only get to that if we hold these people accountable, so whoever’s listening in Congress, your subpoenas have only begun. We need more live testimony. You need to get every email of every signatory on that letter and Jan, this is a critical point, the subpoenas need to go out to get every document, every email, every handwritten note, every letter, that back channeled the fast tracking of the 51 Intel letter through the system so we can see who else was in on it, who knew about it, and how far up the chain it went.

Mr. Jekielek: Yes, with this whole situation, I’m with you. There are a lot more questions than answers, but there is an opportunity to get some answers.

Mr. Patel: That’s what constitutional oversight is for at Congress, right? I don’t expect any answers from this DOJ and FBI, and we’ve talked about that extensively in the past. Why? We’ve talked about the two-tier system of Justice, Jan, and it seems to be a common theme, and it doesn’t just apply in judicial proceedings. Now we’re seeing it apply in administrative proceedings outside of the judicial process at agencies like the CIA, the NSA, the DOD; all who had equities in a letter like this that was signed by the 51 Intel heads.

When you see that administrative bifurcation of a system that’s supposed to be on one track, you now have a repeated pattern of conduct from Russiagate on forward where you say, it’s not just in the courts. How come this letter can receive such preferential treatment? Why is it always that President Trump is the target of every single instance of a two-tier system of justice?

Here’s the kicker, Jan, and we’re going to get to this in a minute. How is it that a sitting president, President Biden, the Commander-in-Chief, the head of the DOJ and the IC [Intelligence Community] and all of the U.S. government can come out and declare his son’s innocence before the investigation is even concluded? That is the destruction of due process.

Jan Jekielek: It’s interesting that you asked that question because I just sat down with Alan Dershowitz for a very long talk on American Thought Leaders. It’s going to be broadcast on Saturday night at 7.30pm and a lot of it is about his book titled,Get Trump.” It talks about how all sorts of structures in society, legal and beyond that, have been co-opted by the idea that President Trump was some sort of existential threat, and all sorts of rules and checks and balances could be tossed out to deal with him, so to speak—he makes that case.

Mr. Patel: Yes. He’s one of the preeminent legal minds and scholars of the time. I’m very interested to see what he has to say about all that.

Mr. Jekielek: Before we jump to the House Oversight Committee work, I wanted to actually ask you about your book because it struck me as you were talking about the fast tracking of this letter. You don’t grasp these things unless you’re deep in the system—what seems very fast and what seems very slow. The flip side of that is, and of course this is with DOD, not with the FBI, is that your book seems to be stuck in limbo, and I’m unhappy about that because I want to read it.

Mr. Patel: I appreciate that, and I won’t belabor too much since it’s about me and my book, but my book is called, Government Gangsters, and as I said, you have to submit it per the requirements of your government tenure back to the government for approval and usually a book takes about three months. I agree with the process, Jan. It’s done so you can protect the privacy rights of certain individuals. It’s done so you ensure classified information doesn’t leak out and things like that.

It’s in place for a proper reason, but when folks like Barr and Pompeo, and I’ll just give you the facts rather than my opinion on this and let the audience judge for themselves. Former AG Barr, former Secretary Pompeo, former SECDef Esper all had their books reviewed and put out in three months. Former NSA Bolton, he just put his book out and released it with classified information and the DOJ failed to prosecute him upon it.

Having written my book and having my experience, I know it doesn’t contain classified information, but it’s been in limbo for over six months. We’re going on month seven of review. Remember, just because it was submitted to the DOD, that’s my last position, like the 51 Intel letter was submitted to the CIA, it’s supposed to go out to all other agencies who have an equity in it.

The FBI most certainly has an equity in both my book and the Intel letter, but why do I have to file a federal lawsuit, go out and hire lawyers, which I just did last week, and I’m suing the federal government for the release of my manuscript because they have slow rolled the release of this book, which as you and I have talked about, exposes government corruption and how we solve those problems—some of the problems we just highlighted on this show.

I don’t know where it’s going to go, Jan, but it’s an example again, of the bifurcation or the preferential treatment of one manuscript versus another document that was submitted for review because of who the target is and because of who might be exposed to have held a high government position but broke the law or broke their oath of office, so we’ll see how it all shakes out.

Mr. Jekielek: Kash, let’s jump to the House Oversight Committee now. In the inaugural episode earlier this week on Wednesday of American Thought Leaders Now, you talked about the need for the House Oversight Committee to provide full banking records. The report which they presented, the so-called banking memo, provides some snippets of this information and frankly, a lot of details.

You talked about why it’s important to publish the full banking information. You mentioned how it’s important to release this information to be sure that the committee can’t be accused of basically having false information or something like that and then of course, there’s also the issue of the whistleblower. What’s your take?

Mr. Patel: Jan, money doesn’t lie. It just doesn’t. I’ll rewind the tape a little and give you my perspective from the guy that was in charge of running the Russiagate investigation. What did we do? We subpoenaed the banks based upon our sources uncovered during our investigation to find out that the DNC and Hilary had paid for the Steele dossier and laundered it through a law firm with the assistance of Fusion GPS, then tunneled it into the FBI to unlawfully surveil a presidential candidate. Sounds like crazy stuff, right, but we followed the money.

Here’s the other thing we did. We put out the Nunes memo outlining akin to what Chairman Comer has done, we’ll call it the Comer banking memo, and we summarized for the American people our investigation to date. I think that’s a great first step because as Comer and as then Chairman Nunes and I were talking about, this is thousands of pages of stuff.

It’s good to put out a summary on the one hand, but what we also did back then was methodically release the documents in a legal way so that the American public and the world could just see here’s the banking document, here’s the FISA warrant, here’s the FBI 1023 or 302. You all read it for yourselves and see if our summary document holds water.

The summary is important because what the summary shows right now is that there was a years-long campaign between at least two countries and the Bidens. Romania and China, more specifically the CCP and the amount of money to the tune of tens of millions of dollars coming in for what Chairman Comer described as bribery and pay for play schemes with not just Hunter Biden, but eight other, at a minimum, Biden family relatives.

Jan, that is a massive scale if it’s true bribery and pay for play scheme because they’re saying, Chairman Comer is alleging in this memo, it happened when President Biden was Vice President Biden. Just think of that for a minute. In 21st century America, we have a chairman of one of the most prestigious committees in Congress saying, and I believe credibly, I don’t think he’s making it up, that during the Obama administration, our number two in command of the United States and his family were taking bribes.

Just let that settle in. I don’t want that to happen whether you’re a Democrat or Republican or whatever and so this is the most shocking investigatory work by Congress since Russiagate. What I want to see, Jan, are the banking records. What I want to see are the source reporting that James Comer and his committee have taken in from government and private entities through their subpoena process so that the online sleuths, as we always refer to them as, and the American public, can look at them and say, “We believe you,” because here’s what we don’t want, Jan.

Comer referenced this in his presentation. We don’t want another Adam Schiff moment. We don’t want an envelope that’s blank where he lies to the world and says, “I have all the evidence,” and there’s nothing in there. I don’t think Comer is doing that, for one instance. Look at what the White House did right before Comer took to the sticks, as we say, took to the microphone. They put out an excoriating pre-rebuttal of Comer’s presser by saying, “James Comer is conducting a political witch hunt, a politically driven, made up investigation of the Biden family.”

They did that before he even went out there because that’s the narrative they want the legacy media to carry and make no mistake about it, Jan, the mainstream media will carry that narrative unless we have the documentation. I know I was involved in Russiagate and was one of the lead guys in it so it’s what I know and it’s what I reference.

Remember what happened back then? We put out the information and we put out the documents, and the media still came in over the top and only years later did most of them come around to the fact that they were completely wrong and completely lied to. Comer has a unique opportunity to build off of that and say, “We learned, we the media learned from Russiagate. We’re giving you the information now, and if you ignore it now, you will have established more than a pattern of conduct of putting out disinformation for political achievement.”

I think that is the fulcrum in which Comer has to balance his investigation. I think within a week, certain documents have to come out, and I think there’s just got to be a timeline, a methodical production thereafter, every other week, a bulk of documents every month, but there’s got to be a continued dispersal.

Mr. Jekielek: One thing I want to mention, and of course we talk about this often on Kash’s Corner and American Thought Leaders. There’s this incredible citizen journalism and citizen deep analysis of documentation that’s going on as we speak in all sorts of areas of FOIAs and this is a great opportunity to have the raw information available for some of these sleuths who have shown to be incredibly astute to see what they can find.

Mr. Patel: I’m all in. I’m all with you and that’s why I think it has to come out in this fashion. I don’t know if anyone’s listening over there, but start putting out the documents. It’s great work to date, but you got to start giving us the raw material.

Mr. Jekielek: Kash, what about this whistleblower and what about this evidence that’s supposed to come in? We’re taping here on Wednesday, perhaps we’re going to see some subpoenaed material from the FBI.

Mr. Patel: Just to narrow it down, I know the whistleblower you’re referring to, but for our audience, there’s been multiple streams of whistleblowers: the IRS whistleblower, the FBI whistleblowers. What Jan is referring to is that Senator Grassley and Chairman Comer took the extraordinary and I think right step in subpoenaing a very specific whistleblower’s documentation from the FBI. A whistleblower that they say they believe provided credible reporting to show that there was an FBI source who provided information directly to the FBI that alleged the bribery scheme that Comer is unveiling today.

Now, what we don’t know is the following, Jan. Is it the same whistleblower that has assisted Comer in this investigation? Is it another one? We can’t make those assumptions just yet. Are they talking about Romania? Are they talking about the CCP or are they talking about something totally different? We don’t know just yet, but with the totality of information we have right now, it’s logical that that whistleblower has provided specific information to what has been presented to the public today.

Let’s talk about the documentation and how this works. Back in Russiagate, we were the first committee in Congress to subpoena what’s called an FBI 1023. That is fancy FBI code terminology for a confidential human source report. It simply means that an agent at the FBI came into contact with a recruited source of the FBI and received information and then put it in a memorandum, a FBI 1023 of that source and said, “This is what I was told on this and this date,” and he conducts almost an interrogation in private, of course, and documents it and files it away. That’s what a 1023 is.

Just to hit pause on that for a second, we now know that happened. To remind our audience, an FBI agent ingesting that information from an FBI informant means that that informant was verified, proved to be credible by the FBI’s own internal audits and possibly and likely on the FBI payroll or receiving some sort of benefit outside of pecuniary to provide that information.

I’ll remind the audience. That 1023 that Comer is referring to is from 2020. It’s been sitting in the FBI vaults for what, three some years, Jan. If this whistleblower provided information to the FBI three years ago, did they act? Did they fail to act? Did they not act because they made a political decision not to act? There are so many more questions that come into play and 2020 was when I believe Bill Barr was the AG and Chris Wray, the director of the FBI.

They’re probably going to have a lot of questions to answer like Gina Haspel that I referenced at the top of the show. That leads me to a story that broke over the past week about the former DOJ prosecutor who submitted information in 2018 about the Biden corruption scandal. He’s not a whistleblower because he just came out publicly and said, “This is what I did.”

He’s not the whistleblower in the traditional sense, meaning he’s seeking anonymity and protection. He’s just saying, “I did this,” and someone at the DOJ in 2018 when Rod Rosenstein was running the place, made a decision to quash, to stop that investigation wholesale. Are the two related? I don’t know. Maybe more subpoenas are going out in relation to what that individual prosecutor put out in 2018. We’ll see. Will they intersect?

There are so many more questions we have with the one whistleblower, this prosecutor’s revelations. This is what Congress must do. I’ve talked about it on prior shows. It’s what we did in Russiagate. You’ve got to take their money. I’m not saying you take all the operational funds of the FBI or the IC or anything like that. You take pockets of money where these individuals in senior government positions are just irking to have, and that is a 20 new fleet of Cadillac Escalade suburban vehicles, a brand new headquarters building out in the beachfront properties of Maryland or the like.

You say, “Until you give us the lawfully subpoenaed information we have un-redacted, we’re going to put a fence around this money, we’re going to seize this money, and you’re not going to be able to use it for what you need.” You will see how fast those guys come in and operate. I don’t know that the FBI’s going to produce this. I think this is what they’re going to do. Just a hunch based on the past.

They’re going to produce either a 90 percent redacted document or they’re going to say to Chairman Comer, “You and one other person can come see this in private, but you can’t take notes and you can’t talk about it,” or they’re going to come up with some ruse like, “Let’s talk about it. It might be involved in an ongoing investigation we can’t show you.”

Chairman Comer and company and Chairman Jordan have to have the audacity to cut through that government bureaucratic nonsense so that the American people can get the answers they’re owed. The January 6th committee showed us the power of a congressional subpoena and now we’ll see if the Republicans who have the mandate will utilize that subpoena process to its fullest power.

Mr. Jekielek: All right, Kash. We’re going to find out what happens. It’s time for our shout out.

Mr. Patel: Indeed it is, Jan. This week’s shout out goes to Kim Broloff. Thanks so much for your comments on the board for Kash’s Corner. Thank you everybody else who provides Jan and I invaluable insight and feedback to our weekly show. It helps us make the show better, it helps us serve your needs and let us know what you want us to be discussing and diving into next. Also, thanks to everybody who participated in our live chat and does so on a weekly basis, and we’ll see you next week on Kash’s Corner.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.


To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts


-

PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD:


The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD:



-

Follow American Thought Leaders on social media:


8 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

Post: Blog2_Post

HOT PRODUCTS

bottom of page