Why is the FBI targeting churches? Who approved the memos singling out Catholic churches and associating terms like “red pill” and “based” with domestic violent extremism?
How did classified intelligence on Ukraine end up spreading online for weeks without being detected?
And what does Kash Patel—as the person in charge of the Defense Department’s transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration—make of National Security Council spokesman John Kirby saying recently the Trump administration was not forthcoming when it came to plans for the Afghanistan withdrawal?
Interview trailer:
Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/kashs-corner-obfuscation-and-lies-from-the-pentagon-intel-leak-to-the-whitewashing-of-the-afghanistan-exit-debacle_5194895.html
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Kash Patel: Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Kash’s Corner. This week we are going to dive into all things intel, classified leaks, and so much more. Jan, where should we kick it off?
Jan Jekielek: That’s the thing, isn’t it? We’ve got these leaks, and it’s really unclear at this point, is it actual intelligence? Is it legit? People don’t know. People say it has been altered. We’re going to find out what you think. A big thing is this after-action report that the Pentagon has put out. Some of the things that the NSC [National Security Council] spokesperson John Kirby was saying don’t comport with some things we’ve actually said on the show. We definitely need to look at that.
Finally, the FBI is targeting Catholics with terms like based and redpilled. We’ve got to talk about that. Let’s start with these so-called classified documents from the Pentagon related to the Russia-Ukraine war, with things like troop positions, weapons and deployments. We’re not getting a lot of information about whether this is legit, or what the significance is.
Mr. Patel: The reporting that we’re seeing now, we’re talking about very sensitive collect. We’re talking about troop and operational planning in the Ukraine. We’re talking about intelligence as it relates to China and Russia and Ukraine. We’re talking about Mossad, literally the Israeli version of the CIA. This is some of our most sensitive intelligence.
Why do I define it as such? Because classified intelligence comes in a number of forms, and as it gets smaller and smaller towards the top, meaning the more sensitive it gets, the less people have access to it. This disclosure of classified information, which I believe is unlawful, only could have come from a few certain people.
You mentioned that it was a leak, and I want to come back to that. If it was a leak, that means it was an inside job by some U.S. government employee or contractor working with or just disclosing it to a media agency, whether it’s a newspaper or an online web-based platform. That’s illegal, it’s a felony, and it’s a terrible day for U.S. national security.
Here’s something that is scarier. As bad and as unlawful as a leak of classified information is, what if it was an intrusion? What if Russia, China, some other actors found a way to tunnel into our classified system and pluck this information out?
Let me throw you another scenario. What if it was an intrusion by an activist? What do I mean by that? Someone, either a U.S. government employee or private citizen, acquired this information and disclosed it to the entities they knew would promulgate that information on a wide scale platform.
But I believe, based on the tradecraft and the type of information and the disclosure process here, it is not just a leak of classified information, but it’s more likely that it’s an activist-disclosure combined with the possibility of foreign intrusion or private intrusion by a bad actor.
That’s Julian Assange. Many people out there called for Julian Assange to be pardoned, saying, “Yes, he committed egregious felonies in the United States of America by disclosing information.” Remember, it’s not that WikiLeaks was the entity. We don’t know all the details publicly.
It’s not that WikiLeaks, as it was publicly reported, was the entity that got the intel, meaning they mined in there and got it. They combined with partners and received this information. This is the type of intrusion-activist programming that I’m talking about. He was the one that put it out there, and he has never disclosed how that happened, as far as I’m aware.
All the people that said give him a hall pass, get-out-of-jail free card, literally, are you going to call for that same scenario here? Because that’s what essentially is happening. I don’t believe Julian Assange should receive a pardon or a get-out-of-jail free card. He broke the law, and there is a disastrous consequence to releasing classified information in the fashion that he did. This is no different.
People will also compare it back to the Snowden thing, which is a similar tradecraft operation, but Snowden was an actual NSA [National Security Agency] contractor. But if you recall, his goal was to get that information out there. That was his intention. He did that, fled to Hong Kong, and then eventually found asylum in Russia.
For a bad actor, is that what they want to do? Because then, you know their intent. Their intent is to forget the law and say, “I want this information out there, legal consequences aside, and I don’t care about the harm that it does to American national security.” That’s my biggest problem with these three scenarios.
Now, we don’t have enough information to make that determination, but it doesn’t look like this was just some random disclosure to a media outlet by a disgruntled U.S. government employee. It just doesn’t seem that way to me. It’s not a traditional leak in that sense.
For the U.S. government to figure this one out, it’s going to take some time. We’ll see a lot of parallels to Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and even to Snowden. But actually, my bigger problem, if you can possibly have one in this scenario, is the United States government’s response to this or lack thereof.
Mr. Jekielek: The response being, it was the NSC spokesperson, John Kirby, who said, “We don’t really know much about it. We’re looking into it.”
Mr. Patel: Which is shocking. John Kirby, the national security spokesperson—who has zero credibility in my book, and we’ll elaborate on why once we get to the Afghan withdrawal and his lies about that—comes to the largest podium in the world and is asked, “Has the leak been contained?” “I don’t know,” was his response. That’s scary, Jan.
John Kirby: We don’t know who’s responsible for this, and we don’t know if they have more that they intend to post. So we’re watching this and monitoring it as best we can, but the truth and the honest answer to your question is we don’t know. And is that a matter of concern to us? You’re darn right it is.
Mr. Patel: You don’t know if it has been contained? What have you been doing? What has the response been? They’ve known about this for a while. They were not able to contain it. They haven’t figured out its root origin, and now they’re chasing a media narrative to exonerate themselves, instead of chasing the actual criminals that were involved in this type of disclosure and leak operation. That’s what is most frustrating to me, aside from the information leaked.
Let’s get to the intelligence itself, and we really don’t have access to it. We just have access to whatever is publicly reported. Here’s something that people haven’t pieced together on Ukraine. We’ll get to the piece about it being altered in a second. Let me remind our audience that the United States has spent upwards of $110 billion in Ukraine. The campaign, from a media communications perspective, has been succeeding. The money, the armaments, the weaponry, the training that the United States government has provided the Ukrainian government has been succeeding in defeating Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine. But not according to these documents.
These are U.S. intelligence documents that say the strategic policy in the Ukraine is essentially failing. When you juxtapose that hard intelligence with what the White House has told us, somebody is lying. We have said on our show that committing money to an effort in the Ukraine is failing for a number of reasons. Lack of accountability on where the money goes is one of those.
But now we have U.S.-based intelligence assessment and reporting saying what we’re doing is not working. The Biden administration hasn’t addressed that. John Kirby or nobody else has said, “That intelligence is wrong. We believe we’re still winning,” because they have a monstrous problem now.
In my opinion, they have been caught lying to the world about what successes, if any, we’ve had in Ukraine. All the while they’ve had intelligence from the United States intelligence community saying the opposite. It’s not like nobody read that. As we talked about earlier, that reporting probably made its way into the daily presidential briefing over to the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the NSA.
All of that reporting is read by those folks, and they advise the President. How could they have that reporting in one hand, and then on the other hand, lie to the world about what’s going on in Ukraine? This has the possibility of being one of Joe Biden’s largest disasters when it comes to American national security, because of how they’ve handled it so far.
Mr. Jekielek: I want to go back to Assange and Snowden for a moment. Many people would argue, and there’s a case to be made for this, that Americans are better off knowing about the surveillance that is being done on them, which was being denied at the time by the security state. You’re taking these current intel disclosures at face value. You’re assuming as if they’re true. Some feel that Americans are also better off knowing, purely through this classified leak of the information. But yet, you’re vehemently arguing against it at the same time. Please explain this to me.
Mr. Patel: Yes, that’s a pivotal distinction. Back when I was heading up the Russiagate investigation, I always said that the intelligence community and the classification process can never be utilized to cover up corruption or hide unlawful government actions.
Mr. Jekielek: But it often is as we’ve learned.
Mr. Patel: As we’ve learned, it often is. When I ran the Russiagate investigation, we also learned about the abuses at the FISA court about the unlawful funneling of money from a political party. We learned about the hijacking of the FBI—employees, agents, counselors, and lawyers in the FBI who were abusing the system.
I didn’t say, “Hey, let’s leak this.” There’s a right way to do it, and we did it the right way. We followed the steps. I know that people in the public are going to disagree with this and say, “No, you should have done it quicker. You should have done it faster.” Look at what shifted. What shifted is completely, in my opinion, unlawful and unethical.
There’s a way to get these abuses and these corrupt actors out from within the government. Snowden could have easily become a whistleblower. That’s how we get good, credible, verifiable information. Look at the recent history of FBI whistleblowers. We’re going to talk about some of that in a minute when we talk about the FBI’s unlawful targeting.
If you are a U.S. government employee entrusted with this type of information and you sign onto those programs, you are saying, “I have to defend this nation.” Then, you can’t go out on the other hand and say, “I’ve discovered corruption. I want the easy way out. I’m going to give it to the media.” In my opinion, that’s just not the way to do it. But a lot of people will disagree with me.
Collectively, we agree with the endpoint. When you have corruption, when you have U.S. government employees breaking the law, when you have unlawful targeting, when you have unlawful leaks and disclosures, it needs to be vigorously investigated and prosecuted. Everyone agrees with that.
How we get there is where people disagree. There might not be an easy way out. Just because I was right, it’s really not about me and how I’m being right. It’s about having a credible position to prove what you are saying.
With Russiagate, instead of just leaking it to the media, which at the time all that information was still classified, we are in a much stronger position later, years down the road, for having followed the process and the law to disclose that information to the American public in a lawful legal manner.
Because now we are being attacked for saying those guys broke the law just to get you the intelligence. They are doing what Snowden and Julian Assange did. If government actors started doing that, then a large portion of the national security apparatus would literally implode because they would be serving their self-interest versus executing their oath of office.
Mr. Jekielek: You’re basically saying, we can’t break the system to save the system.
Mr. Patel: That’s a better way of saying it. Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: That’s very interesting. Most likely the information that Snowden had with him was directly given to multiple foreign adversaries based on his travel plan, which obviously would be highly problematic.
Mr. Patel: That leads to another great point. We haven’t talked about the propaganda campaign. Remember we said it’s been reported that some of these documents might be altered? The White House has even made statements like, “There might have been photographs that were altered.” That’s a red herring. Who cares if they were altered?
That’s what China and Russia do every day. Their propaganda machines are the largest in the world. They take our intelligence any way they can get it and then distort it for their gain, whether it’s about Ukraine, Taiwan, the South China Sea, conversion of the petrodollar, the petroyuan—anything that benefits the CCP and Russia globally and hurts America.
I don’t believe that the White House is going to sway the American public by saying the documents were altered. Of course they were. It’s a red herring from the White House to say, “It might have been bogus.” Here’s the bottom line. If it was bogus, Jan, everybody in the United States government would have come out and said so, because that’s their job with definitive authority.
Of course you know whether those documents are yours or not. They’re out there on the internet. You literally pull the number on the document, and you put it in the Doculator and you say, “Where is this report?” Then, you get the guy that wrote the report and you say, “Is this your report?” “Yes, sir, it is.”
It’s really easy. It’s not that hard to figure out. It is hard, if you want to bury corruption, and that’s what they’re doing here. They want to create a false narrative, and that only further hurts Americans’ belief in the national security system. That’s why there are so many people out there agreeing with what you posited earlier. Let’s just have everyone put it out there on their own. It gives that side credence, and it’s because of these government actors abusing the system. This is just one example.
Mr. Jekielek: This is a fascinating discussion, and I want to follow it up in another episode. We’ve got a couple of other topics to get to. Why is the FBI looking at Catholic churches? Why have terms like based and redpilled made their way into FBI training manuals? What’s going on?
Mr. Patel: We were just talking about intelligence, and it’s a great segue into this piece because it’s supposed to be based on intelligence. But tragically, we now have a two-tiered system of justice. We’ve talked about it extensively on this show. We’ve talked about the manipulation of intelligence by Chris Wray’s FBI in the past to falsely go after domestic violent extremists because they were Trump supporters, like when Chris Wray went to Congress and lied about it.
Not only is it not based on intelligence, it’s based on a political orientation. It got so far as to enter the FBI training manual. That means FBI agents in the field are told, “This is essentially the bible for law enforcement. This is how you conduct your duty every day.” That means some intel analyst, an FBI agent and others got together and typed this up and said, “We, the FBI, are going to train our agents to go after Christians in houses of worship.”
Why? What piece of intelligence did you produce to say that blanket statement? I don’t know how many churches there are in America, but it’s got to be a lot, Jan. You are going to now go in there and embed sources to collect on Christians? If there’s a particular Christian committing a crime that you have evidence on, sure, I get that. But you’ve just given blanket authority to surveil an entire group based on a religious belief. I have a huge problem with that, because it’s not supported by intelligence.
Here’s the bigger problem. That written report that was created by an FBI agent, an intel analyst and all their teams out in the field, and I think it was the Richmond field office, actually made its way into a training manual. That means it has to be approved by the assistant special agent in charge, by the special agent in charge, the SAC, [Special Agent in Charge] and by Washington DC’s behemoth headquarters project. They have a direct chain of command.
Here’s the one thing you can count on the FBI to do, and it’s how we undid their corruption in Russiagate. They have a chain of command that they never remove themselves from unless they want to supersede a case like the Hillary Clinton email investigation in Russiagate. But you can count on that chain of command like we did in Russiagate to get the underlying documentation.
All these people signed off on it along the way. It’s not like some rogue agent went out there and said, “Let me just send this email out, and you boys in the field, you now have to go chase down houses of worship.” Chris Wray and the FBI put out a recent statement on this. They’ve since rejected it, of course, they’ve rejected it. The problem is that it got through the field offices and Washington headquarters because people approved it. What Congress should be asking is who approved it and how far up the chain did it go, and did Chris Wray approve it? Something like this has to hit the director’s desk. You’re going to embed sources paid for by U.S. government taxpayer dollars into Christian houses of worship, because of what?
If Chris Wray doesn’t know, it’s an even bigger problem that his chain of command is failing to advise him on the most important new investigatory tactics his field level agents are supposed to execute. It’s largely problematic, and there’s going to be a massive uproar in congressional hearings and subpoenas. Jim Jordan already subpoenaed Chris Wray for the underlying documentation that I just requested, and it’s going to be an interesting day when he testifies, hopefully in the near future.
Mr. Jekielek: Kash, there appears to be an inordinate focus in the FBI on issues of dubious importance, based on their response to this information being unearthed. We’ve discussed this on the show earlier. Where your focus is, also talks about where your focus isn’t, and that’s very concerning.
Mr. Patel: That’s a critical analysis of what we’re talking about. You only have so many agents and manpower to put against a target. If the FBI field manual has been changed to target people of worship, do you know what they’re not targeting? That would be Illegal classified leaks of information, improper disclosures, foreign intrusions through a cyber-campaign to tunnel into our classified system, and how that information is being spread out around the world to attack the United States of America and its national security interests.
Because you decided at the FBI that it was more important to falsely surveil Christians or people of faith based on no actual information whatsoever, and set an entire agency on course A, when they should be on the course for finding the truth prosecuting actual criminals. It’s a key piece that most everyone forgets. It’s not like we have an infinite amount of resources. This seems to be a priority shift by the FBI.
Mr. Jekielek: Kash, what about these terms? I’ve heard you use the word based before. I’ve certainly used the term redpill multiple times. How do these things end up in the lexicon of extremism?
Mr. Patel: In the FBI? As a former federal prosecutor, I understand that sometimes certain verbiage lends itself to augment a particular investigation, especially when I was doing terrorism work. But that doesn’t mean you come out and train an entire cadre of FBI agents and say, “If you hear this, it’s criminal. You need to open an investigation.” Don’t just take my word for it.
The FBI has now admitted, along with this field training manual that’s since been rescinded, that other terminology, not just what your faith-based belief system is, but actual verbiage just generically describing something is a way to target people criminally according to FBI rules. The FBI added to their field training manual the terms based and redpilled along with a few others. Those terms are somewhat common in the, for lack of a better definition, Trump world, MAGA movement community. Those terms don’t actually mean what the FBI says they do.
Mr. Jekielek: I’m just going to jump in. Not just the Trump world, MAGA movement community. I have heard these terms from all sorts of people who are not particularly even sympathetic towards MAGA.
Mr. Patel: I agree. That’s a great point. But the FBI is saying that the reason we’re using this verbiage is because it follows whoever is subscribed to Donald Trump’s ideology. The further problem is that the FBI has defined the word based, and I just want to use this as an example. This isn’t my definition. This is what the FBI wrote. In the FBI training manual, based means, “Someone who has been converted to racist ideology.” That’s what it means to be based, according to the FBI.
Mr. Jekielek: I hope that is also rescinded.
Mr. Patel: Actually, I don’t know the status of it.
Mr. Jekielek: I would love to know who wrote that definition.
Mr. Patel: Again, field level operatives, agents, and lawyers at the FBI look at it, the supervisory chain of command authorizes it, and then it’s implemented in the FBI training manual. That’s how it gets there. This shows that the FBI has continued under Chris Wray’s leadership to target people based on faith, now based on common everyday verbiage that they want to falsely ascribe to a certain section of the American public, because they want a justification to target them. Ultimately, at the end of the day, that’s why these training manual adjustments were approved.
They’re looking for justification, a hook to get in there and then commit more corruption like they did when they unlawfully surveilled me when I was a House intelligence committee senior staffer. They had training manuals and people in the chain of command all the way up to the director of the FBI and DOJ who had to sign off on the FBI training manual. Remember, the FBI director reports to the Department of Justice.
All of these people must be held to account. What they are going to come around and say is, “Oh, we didn’t know about it.” That’s even worse, Jan. Your subordinates are essentially committing criminal activities to falsely target Americans, and you have no idea that is going on? Congress has a lot of work to do on this matter, and I hope they take it up.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s shift gears quickly because we’ve still got a bit to cover. On a number of shows, we’ve covered the issue of the DOD [Department of Defense] transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration. You were obviously very deeply involved in that. I remember you telling me that there was a whole plan for withdrawal that you passed on to the Biden administration during that transition.
I was actually at the White House listening to NSC spokesperson, John Kirby, say a number of times during a talk, “We didn’t get anything of this nature from them,” and this is me paraphrasing. These two views don’t square with each other at all.
Mr. Patel: As we’ve always said, they definitely don’t. The tragic victim of all this is America and global security, all for the benefit of the White House’s dishonest talking points. As chief of staff at DOD, by regulation, I was in charge of the DOD transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration.
That doesn’t mean I did the work. I was the leader on paper, and thankfully we had career officials throughout the department engaging and executing that transition process. We executed the largest transition in DOD history. Just think about that.
During the height of COVID, we gave the Biden administration more access to DOD employees than ever before. We gave them more access to programs, documents, intelligence, and classified matters than ever before.We let them come in and sit in our building with whoever they wanted. That’s the no-fail mission of the Department of Defense. I’ll remind our audience that transition can’t happen unless the Trump White House orders it to happen, which it did.
Mr. Jekielek: Just very briefly, how did you quantify that this was the biggest or the most accessed?
Mr. Patel: I wrote an op-ed, and we can put up a link to it. With the employees that were given access in the incoming Biden administration, the documents and intelligence cables that were handed over and provided to them, everything from submarine warfare to what we’re building next to Afghanistan, China, Russia, intel, all of that was produced to them in a systematic fashion through the transition process.
Mr. Jekielek: The big question, of course, is Afghanistan. With this after-action report, or at least the way John Kirby portrayed it, a lot of this information just simply wasn’t passed down. It was a mystery.
Mr. Patel: I’ll leave it for our audience to decide who’s telling the truth and who’s lying. John Kirby is the one who, as we talked about earlier, said he doesn’t know whether the leak that we talked about is contained. Then, when he was specifically asked about Afghanistan at the White House, John Kirby said, “I just did not see the chaos.” The spokesman for the President of the United States did not see the chaos in the Afghan withdrawal.
He didn’t see the scores of Afghan citizens plunging thousands of feet to their death from our C17 transport planes? He didn’t see the seven children that were drone struck by the Biden administration? He didn’t see the 13 American soldiers that were blown up because the Biden administration relinquished control of Bagram Airfield and its detention center and let out the very suicide bomber that would murder our American soldiers?
He didn’t see the chaos in any of that? Then, he has the gall to come to the podium and say, “The Afghan withdrawal is essentially the Trump administration’s fault. because they didn’t engage.”
Mr. Jekielek: Just to be clear, I do believe he did talk about the 13 service members that were killed and that this was a tragedy.
Mr. Patel: He said that, but he said that he didn’t see the chaos, is my point. If the loss of American soldiers’ lives isn’t chaotic in wartime or in an exfiltration operation, then that man should not be speaking to any interest regarding American national security. For him to go out and say we weren’t given anything is not true. Let me give you two concrete examples.
The Secretary of Defense, Chris Miller, called Incoming Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin. He sent a one-word text message response. Chris offered him uninhibited access to him, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to come in any time and meet with him to hand off documents and do what have you. They refused. I called my counterpart, the incoming chief of staff, and I said the same thing. “We are here for you. Our staff, our team will be readily available to you; whatever you want, whenever you want it.”
Instead, they took it upon themselves to leak to the media that we weren’t transitioning to them and their teams. We didn’t pay any of that any mind. We said the no-fail mission is what matters. If those two individuals and their immediate senior staff don’t want to come in, it doesn’t mean we aren’t going to have the Joint Chiefs of Staff visit with the incoming Biden administration.
It doesn’t mean that Office of Secretary of Defense employees aren’t going to meet with the incoming senior leadership team. It doesn’t mean that the sections in the Department of Defense responsible for Afghanistan warfare and special forces aren’t going to meet with their counterparts and the incoming Biden administration. We made sure all of that happened.
Is there one page that says, “This is what you do in Afghanistan?” Of course not. That’s absurd. There is a myriad of work when it comes to intelligence, when it comes to weaponry, and when it comes to logistics. The reason the Department of Defense has the largest operation for logistics in the world is because it’s the largest company in the world.
Moving men and equipment out of a theater of war is a massive lift. You are talking about moving the largest planes on earth in and out of a theater of war to exfil Americans, Afghan citizens and others along with equipment and machinery. Just think about the logistics of doing one plane load. We did hundreds.
All of this was being transitioned over to the Biden administration. The key example I want to give on this John Kirby statement is that the whole world knows we told them, “You have to keep Bagram, and you have to transition based on intelligence.” And we told them one more thing.
“There can be no timeline. You can’t have an artificial, “I’m out on this date.” It has to be intelligence-based like we were doing. I told them, “When you come in, you can call this the Biden Withdrawal Plan. I don’t care. It’s a no-fail mission for the United States Department of Defense. We can’t mess this up.”
Instead, their senior leadership team was too busy terminating my employees on maternity and paternity leave instead of paying attention to this information. If they didn’t read it, that’s on them. They’re lying when they say we didn’t provide voluminous information on how to continue the intelligence-based withdrawal that Donald Trump had ordered us to conduct out of Afghanistan.
The fact that the Bagram Detention Center was relinquished, and that the suicide bomber came out of the Bagram Center Detention Center and blew up our soldiers is the most tragic and unfortunate example. But it’s one that has to be showcased here, because it highlights the credibility issues this White House is having when they make such statements like that.
I don’t care what they say about me, and I know Chris Miller doesn’t care about what they say about him or other of our senior leadership teams, because the mission was too important to fail, and they failed. Now, they are taking the media playbook narrative they fall back on when we expose either their corruption or their misgivings or missteps in national security, which is to say, “Blame Trump,” or just lie their way through it.
Just to connect the end of the show here with the top of the show, they are lying their way through the disclosure of intelligence information that was classified from the DOD and other programs. We are going to have to stay on them, and Congress is going to have to act if we’re going to get answers.
Mr. Jekielek: One thing that was quite interesting in what John Kirby was saying was that there’s been a lot of discussion about all this equipment that was left in Afghanistan. What John Kirby said was basically that this equipment had all been transitioned to the Afghans already, so this was already Afghan equipment. It was not U.S. equipment anymore. He reiterated that.
Mr. Patel: There is paperwork and documentation on it that the Biden administration made the intentional decision to leave it there. That was not our decision, nor was it our recommendation. Certain small pieces of equipment that no longer served a purpose were at the end of their shelf life could have been destroyed or blown up in the country.
Certain small pieces of equipment were given to the Afghans, but we certainly did not leave, whatever you believe the number is, $50, $60, $70 billion worth of equipment there and just transition it over to the Afghans, because they don’t know how to operate and maintain so much of that machinery.
That’s our machinery, and our intelligence capabilities. If you believe John Kirby’s statement that you just cited, why don’t you call the Russians and the Chinese and ask them about all of the machinery they’ve taken out of Afghanistan that was American military equipment, and then exploited it for their personal use?
They weren’t stealing it from the Afghans. They were taking it because we left it there, and they found an advantage that they could have over American DOD activities. It’s a terrible sequence of events for this White House from a national security perspective. The one thing that you always want any White House to succeed in is national security.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I’ve been cheering for Joe Biden as our commander-in-chief to succeed on the national security mission. It’s a no-fail mission. But when you have his representatives and senior leadership team lying about classified disclosures and leaks, having a corrupt two-tiered system of justice and unlawful targeting based on faith-based motives or verbiage, and when you have them lying about Afghanistan, the most consequential theater of war we’ve had in modern American history, their credibility is shot, and we can’t believe anything they say anymore. That doesn’t help America.
Mr. Jekielek: The Department of Defense and the National Security Council did not immediately respond to our requests for comment. Kash, it’s time for our shout-out.
Mr. Patel: It is indeed, Jan. This week’s shout-out goes to Patrick H., who is a regular participant and viewer of Kash’s Corner, in our live chat and on the commentary board. We appreciate everyone that leaves comments. I know the live chat has been getting quite lively, and I’m sure it will be no different for this episode. Thank you for participating in the comments section. Thank you for participating in the live chat, and thanks for watching our show. We’ll see you next week on Kash’s Corner.
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:
https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Kash” for 20% off.
Comments