Kash Patel: the main point is to get to discovery

Kash with Charlie Kirk drops some jewels about the Trump lawsuit against the phreaks. They touched on the Durham effort too and it sounds VERY promising!

"The whole point is to get to discovery"

Charlie Kirk and Kash Patel Discuss President Trump's Lawsuit and more

RubyRayMedia on Rumble (mirror of Qnotables on Rumble)
Published Mar 25 2022 (Published Mar 24 by Qnotables)
27:36 viewing length

Transcript

Charlie Kirk 0:00
Welcome back. Subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast. With us right now is Kash Patel; website is fight with Kash.com. He has several lawsuits that he is engaged in against all the worst people on the planet. We'll talk about that. But I want to get... since you're a former federal prosecutor, you understand how this whole world works. I want to ask your thoughts on the news yesterday. We didn't touch on this at all. Donald Trump filed a lawsuit yesterday.

Kash Patel 0:22
Yeah, and it's probably, hopefully he's not listening, it's his best one yet.

Charlie Kirk 0:26
Was it great?

Kash Patel 0:27
I think so. It's the most conclusive comprehensive lawsuit. It's basically if you took the Russiagate investigation with Devin and Iran and looked at it from a criminal perspective, what Donald Trump has done, he's said, Okay, how do I encompass everyone from Comey, Clinton, Clapper, Brennan, and all the whole DNC crew on down? How do I get them civilly in federal court? And the way you do it, is you utilize this thing called RICO, Racketeering Enforcement of Corrupt Organizations. We used to prosecute gangs under RICO. But what people most people don't realize is RICO also has a civil function. So what he did was he took the RICO statute, which is permissible under by law, and said these guys orchestrated the largest criminal enterprise in US history, but I'm suing them on my civil side of the house for I don't know $75 million. The whole point, right? is to get to discovery.

Charlie Kirk 1:16
Yes. Well, then also civil can lead to criminal.

Kash Patel 1:19
Absolutely it can. But I think John Durham's got that covered. We can talk about that later. But I think what the President wanted to focus on was finally say, I'm not going after onesies and twosies here. I'm bringing everybody in, one federal lawsuit, everybody's got to go to the table.

Charlie Kirk 1:33
So, just being objective, do you think this has a chance of...

Kash Patel 1:37
Yes.

Charlie Kirk 1:37
Walk us through why. Because I mean, we've just kind of been so used to being cynical.

Kash Patel 1:41
Sure. And, you know, we talk about how hard it is for defamation and when you get de-platformed, and all that. This is a totally different animal. What he did was figure out a way with his team of lawyers to say, Okay, how can we encompass everybody? The only real way to do that is RICO. But is there a way to hold them accountable under that statute civilly? RICO permits that both monetarily with judgments north of $100 million, which he doesn't really care about. But if you find them at fault, the discovery process along the way is what's critical, because they're going to have to come in and say, No, Mr. President, we did not violate the RICO statute. We did not enter into an organized conspiracy against you to prevent you from being president. And then while you were president, we did not go up and illegally surveil you, and oh, by the way, the great thing is, how are they going to get around that? There's an inspector general report that says exactly what they did. And it's what Donald Trump brought civilly. And there's also Department of Justice filings, the revocation of the FISA warrants against Carter Page. How are they going to get around that? These are judicial rulings in place and concrete memorandum under oath that they can't dodge.

Charlie Kirk 2:48
So what's the threshold you have to reach in a RICO civil case?

Kash Patel 2:52
Yeah. So criminal beyond a reasonable doubt. Pretty high standard, right? Civil cases, every civil case, this thing called a preponderance of the evidence; 51% of 49%. That's it. That's all you need in front of a jury. Not it had to have happened, it must have happened, it should have happened. Did it maybe happen just more than it didn't?

Charlie Kirk 3:11
So I mean, that's overwhelming. In this case, we already know what happened. I mean, just the text messages from Strzok and Page alone, right?

Kash Patel 3:19
I think the intent to answer your question earlier. That's why I think it's so strong because everything's already been founded. And it hasn't been founded by him, Donald Trump, the pleading client, the plaintiff, it's been founded by the government. It's been founded by congressional agencies. There's zillions of under-oath testimony from the likes of Comey and company. And there's all these TV and media statements. And now we have indictments from Durham. So it's already out there.

Charlie Kirk 3:43
Where is he filing the lawsuit?

Kash Patel 3:44
The Southern District of Florida?

Charlie Kirk 3:46
Is that a favorable...like more than SDNY, I guess, or Southern District?

Kash Patel 3:51
I know you and James, were just talking about the Southern D\district. I think it's a pretty good district. And look, I'm biased. I practiced as a public defender in the Southern District of Florida for eight years. So I appeared before every judge down there. And I think they give you a fair shake for the large part. And also, he's based out of Florida, so it kind of makes sense.

Charlie Kirk 4:09
And so this is going to progress. Now, does every one of the defendants have to now defend themselves? Or can they have a combined defense? Or...

Kash Patel 4:17
That's a great question. So what they can do is enter into this thing called a JDA, a Joint Defense Agreement. So you have to get basically like 20 lawyers together to agree on something, which is probably unlikely.

Charlie Kirk 4:27
And the Clintons are going to be looking out for themselves right? And so there might be some trouble in paradise with all these these characters.

Kash Patel 4:35
No, you're totally right. And it's not like they have you know, the Mickey Mouse operation defending them. James Comey and Hillary Clinton have the mega law firms defending them. So does Steele, so does Strzok, so does Page, so does Bruce Ohr, so does Fusion GPS. These people, you can't get these people in one room together to agree on anything. Their lawyers are never going to agree on anything. So what you'll probably see is lower level defendants start copping to agreements, settlements outside, just to pull themselves out of this.

Charlie Kirk 5:00
So there's 48 people in this lawsuit. Can we go through all of them?

Kash Patel 5:04
Yeah.

Charlie Kirk 5:04
So, I got to find this here. Hold on. It's on the Washington Post, which is behind a paywall, I refuse to give them my money.

Kash Patel 5:13
Just the News has it up.

Charlie Kirk 5:14
Do they? Okay, well, let's go. So while I do that, so tell us, so they're gonna have to have like 48 different, if they do a JDA. If not, all of them are gonna have to defend themselves if a judge doesn't throw this out, effectively. Is that right?

Kash Patel 5:26
Yeah. And you have to kind of picture this. Federal courts are nice and big and whatnot, and I used to do a lot of cartel cases defending a lot of cartel cases where you'd have 30, 40 defendants tried, putting all of them in one courtroom with all of their 50 lawyers apiece, plus all of the media.

Charlie Kirk 5:42
But this is gonna take forever, though, right? I mean, this is like a 10 year deal.

Kash Patel 5:46
Well, here's the thing, right? And I think this is the motive here. This is the play. Yes, you want to reach a judgment at the end of the day, but what you want to do is just get to discovery. You can get to discovery inside of a year.

Charlie Kirk 5:58
Alright, so here's the list. All right. All right. Here we go. Hillary R. Clinton. He just had to lead with her first, right? HFACC, Inc. That's Hillary Clinton for America probably Incorporated, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats Services Corporation, Perkins Coie...He's suing a law firm?

Kash Patel 6:17
That's right.

Charlie Kirk 6:17
That's hilarious. Michael Sussman. Who's that again?

Kash Patel 6:20
The guy that was indicted by Special Counsel, John Durham.

Charlie Kirk 6:23
Mark Elias.

Kash Patel 6:24
His co-partner.

Charlie Kirk 6:25
Keep him busy. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan Jr., Jake Sullivan...

Kash Patel 6:31
Who's the current national security adviser.

Charlie Kirk 6:33
John Podesta. Haven't heard a lot about him lately. Robbie Mook, Philippe Reines, I don't know who that is.

Kash Patel 6:40
Hillary Clinton's spokesperson.

Charlie Kirk 6:41
Okay. Fusion GPS.

Kash Patel 6:43
Oh, we know them.

Charlie Kirk 6:44
Glenn Simpson. Peter Fritsch. Nellie Ohr and Bruce Ohr, remind our audience what, they were FBI?

Kash Patel 6:51
Yeah, right. So Bruce Ohr was one of the senior-most attorneys at the Department of Justice. And his wife actually worked to collect and got paid by Fusion GPS to get dirt, false dirt, on President Trump while Bruce Ohr was the number four lawyer at the Justice Department. And then when they shut down Steele, do you know what Bruce Ohr did? He acted as a cutout for the FBI to source that information in.

Charlie Kirk 7:12
Then Orbis Business intelligence, Limited.

Kash Patel 7:16
Christopher Steele's company.

Charlie Kirk 7:18
I'm sure there's some documents there. Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko.

Kash Patel 7:22
Yeah, another guy who was criminally indicted by Durham,

Charlie Kirk 7:26
Neustar Incorporated. Rodney Joffe. Who's that?

Kash Patel 7:30
He's a tech guy that we've been talking about in the last two indictments by John Durham. The...

Charlie Kirk 7:33
Yes, yeah, yeah. The back end access to the White House. This is gonna get interesting. James Comey. Yeah, we know that name. Peter Strzok smirk. The lover Lisa Page. Kevin Clinesmith, who's also been indicted, right?

Kash Patel 7:33
Evicted, too.

Charlie Kirk 7:48
Oh, that's right. But he's got like community service. All right. Well, of course. Yeah. Andy McCabe. And then John Doe one through 10. What is all that? I don't understand what that means.

Kash Patel 7:57
There's certain people you can't identify publicly yet when you bring these types of cases to protect certain people's identities or...

Charlie Kirk 7:57
So how can you sue someone without an identity?

Kash Patel 8:04
Because the plaintiff knows who it is, so they're able to serve them. There's certain equities you have to balance, sometimes, if it's a sensitive case.

Charlie Kirk 8:13
So Trump knows who it is.

Kash Patel 8:14
Yeah.

Charlie Kirk 8:15
Okay. But he doesn't want...

Kash Patel 8:16
Not yet. It'll come out.

Charlie Kirk 8:19
Is that going to be interesting, you think?

Kash Patel 8:20
I think so. Because some of them might be sources. Some of them could be things like, why would you sue a source? Because they're responsible for digging up all the false dirt on you and who has the information? It's follow the money. You got paid by...

Charlie Kirk 8:20
So, this is a big boy lawsuit.

Kash Patel 8:32
No. This is the major leagues.

Charlie Kirk 8:34
And so you're a former federal prosecutor, you've done some amazing things, worked in the Trump White House. Is it written pretty compellingly?

Kash Patel 8:42
Yeah, and I encourage your audience. Normally federal pleadings put you to sleep. The intro to this federal pleading, and just read the first three to four pages, is awesome. It is extremely well done, factually accurate. and it just hits every sentence hard.

Charlie Kirk 8:57
So it'll be really interesting. Kash is with us for the full hour. Okay, it's fight with kash.com Okay, you also have a show with the Epoch Times?

Kash Patel 9:12
Yeah, Kash's Korner, once a week every Friday night and we talk national security defense intelligence. And right now if you go to Truth Social find me at Kash. There's a 14-day free subscription, so you can binge watch the last four seasons.

Charlie Kirk 9:24
Truth is going well. I hear right?

Kash Patel 9:25
Truth is going really well. Look, you're talking to a guy who's a novice. I have never been on social media. Then my former boss decided to start TMTG. Then my former former boss became the CEO of TMTG. And then they said...

Charlie Kirk 9:37
Devin Nunez and Trump.

Kash Patel 9:38
Yeah. And they were like, I think you need to be involved. And I was like, I don't understand how social media works. But it's simple. It's pretty simple. And the engagement cycle on it is impressive.

Charlie Kirk 9:47
Yeah, we're seeing huge engagement. I'm banned from Twitter. So screw Twitter, we're going right to Truth Social. So I want to ask you about a couple pointed questions here. If you can't answer them, it's fine. But do your best please. What's the truth of the Bio Lab thing in Ukraine?

Kash Patel 10:03
Oh, I can guess because I haven't had access to that type of intelligence.

Charlie Kirk 10:06
Okay. So tell us like, because I'm being, I'm told it's Russian disinformation, or is it? I mean, was the United States actively involved in bio laboratories in Ukraine?

Kash Patel 10:15
So I don't know the answer to that definitively because I haven't looked it over, for what, a year and a half now, right? But back when I was Deputy Director of National Intel and Director now, we would do these things called Presidential Daily Briefings. We would take the most sensitive information and prioritize it and present it to the president because he would need to make decisions based on that, along with this, along with his entire cabinet. So this would be one of those things. If you recall, Rick and I, at the time, we couldn't say publicly in late February of 2020, we went to the President said, the China virus came from the Wuhan lab, right. And when President Trump shut down travel from China, he was labeled the, you know, racist, or whatever, whatever, whatever. And then a year later, finally came out that's what happened. But the fake news media came in the interim and said, You guys are lying, there's no way and leaked all sorts of classified information. The Russians are pros at disinformation. So if they wanted to seed some sort of narrative into this cycle, the war that they're in, say the US is funding Ukraine, biolabs, they could do it, they could be very successful at it. And we wouldn't be able to figure it out with this administration's leadership, because they're just not focused on things like countering those types of narratives.

Charlie Kirk 11:23
Right? So Victoria Nuland comes out, she says, there's these Bio Labs. I mean, I just don't trust our current government. When it comes to this. I just don't, especially after Wuhan, and gain of function research and all of that. So how should we look at the Russian Ukrainian situation? It's hard to I mean, I spent some time the other day, because we haven't talked about it in a while. Just because there's so much other stuff going on here. And it's really kind of hard to make sense of really what's happening on the ground.

Kash Patel 11:50
It's almost impossible, literally, because you don't know what if you turn on to News Channel A versus News Channel B, two opposing storylines are coming out about the same topic. So who are you going to believe? You're going to believe, most Americans, the political narrative. They want to believe, which I think hurts American national security is the ultimate politicization of our defense apparatus, thanks to Joe Biden, and the leadership he's put in place. So if you listen to shows like yours, you actually have a chance at getting to the truth because you guys don't care about the outside rhetoric. Your audience just wants to know what happened, and how do I get it? And I think that's why a lot of the cable news networks are failing.

Charlie Kirk 12:27
Like, what really is happening on the ground? I mean, people say Ukraine is winning, then Tulsi Gabbard says there's no way Ukraine can win this war. I mean, it's hard to kind of, you know, separate that. I mean, you have more expertise in this than I do.

Kash Patel 12:40
So look, as Trump's chief of staff for the Department of Defense, right, we ended a couple of wars very successfully. And launching a war is a whole nother animal. And this is what President Putin has done. So in the middle of that process, it is almost impossible to get actual Intel out, especially on a live 24/7 news cycle basis. What I do think is everybody underestimated the Ukraine's ability to defend themselves, including America. And they're doing well. Are they winning? Unlikely, but what needs to happen to end this war is what needs to happen to end all conflicts. You need diplomatic engagements, engagements along with kinetic force operations, which is what's Kelinsky is doing to try to get the sides to agree to taking a knee, basically. And but here's the other thing. Here's the problem with that, right? Putin doesn't care. He doesn't care about Joe Biden, he doesn't care about the Western Allies. He's not afraid of anyone. And he's gonna keep going because he has money. He's got China backing him, he's now got Iran in his pocket. And so he doesn't care about the soldiers that die on his watch. He just wants to land and he wants to be in charge forever.

Charlie Kirk 13:41
Got it. And so I just it's so murky, and it's really kind of hard to make sense of this. And the stakes are so unbelievably high, and I don't trust any of the actors at all that are engaged in this. It's really disappointing. Email us your thoughts, everybody, freedom at Charlie kirk.com. Subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast. Take out your podcast app. We're doing very well in the podcast charts. Thank you. And we have Victor Davis Hanson coming up. This weekend we have Dinesh D'Souza coming up with his recent revelations around election integrity and what is happening on the ground it's some amazing evidence that I know you guys are not gonna want to miss and we're streaming live right now on rumble.com. We also have Congressman Byron Donald's and we're gonna be profiling some exciting new candidates running for office that you guys might want to get behind. So email me freedom at Charlie Kirk.com. We're here with Kash Patel fight with kash.com. Is that right?

Kash Patel 14:34
That's right.

Charlie Kirk 14:35
Alright, check it out. We'll be right back everybody. Patel is here fight with kash.com. You wanted to give a quick update on what's going on with that?

Kash Patel 14:42
Yeah, thanks so much. So fight with kash. We raised money to bring defamation lawsuits for anybody who's been defamed or deplatformed. We've got lawsuits against CNN, The New York Times, Politico, and a bunch of private...

Charlie Kirk 14:53
Is that it?

Kash Patel 14:53
That's it. That's how we teed it off. My lawsuits against some of those companies have been updated. We file pleadings to get passed by basically the judgment or dismissal. So if we win that in the next week or two, we're getting into discovery. And we'll be coming back and talking to you about it. And we've got private citizens lawsuits filed against small media companies. And we're looking to do even more. So any help at fight with kash.com, I would greatly appreciate it.

Charlie Kirk 15:15
You have a great legal mind and a political mind as well. So I want to kind of bounce around a couple of topics I just have when it comes. So I want to first start with the James O'Keefe story. I think you might have heard a little bit about this. I was really pushing James to understand part of this. But so you were a former federal prosecutor. How unusual is it to send a private warrant and then a gag order to accompany? Is that a usual practice?

Kash Patel 15:38
So I was a terrorism prosecutor for a while. And we did a lot of these types of national security high profile cases that we had to keep certain things under wraps.

Charlie Kirk 15:45
But terrorism?

Kash Patel 15:46
Yeah. So that's exactly the difference, right? Well, James O'Keefe and then terrorists, right? So that's exactly the difference. And we would go to certain providers, in extreme cases to be like, we just got to keep this hush-hush. And we would always get the judges say so. You know, you can't just unilaterally like run amok with the DOJ.

Charlie Kirk 16:04
So are these warrants or subpoenas? Because a subpoena does not require a judge oversight, is that correct?

Kash Patel 16:11
So, we're going to get into the weeds a little bit here, okay. So there's subpoenas that you got to go before... you can get a grand jury subpoena, you can go to Article Three, judge and get a subpoena for whatever...

Charlie Kirk 16:20
But can an FBI agent just print out a piece of paper that is a subpoena, like I need your emails or something.

Kash Patel 16:25
So there's National Security Letters, right, the FBI has certain authorities under the law that don't need a requirement of going to a federal judge, they can just say this issue is of a national security concern. We want to go get the data, the call logs, the call text messages, and all that stuff from companies X, Y, and Z while we investigate this matter, that they can do that. If they did that, in James O'Keefe case, again, comparing terrorism to James O'Keefe, right? Someone they just don't like who's an American civilian, would be outrageous, and also, I think, unconstitutional.

Charlie Kirk 16:56
And so, I mean, then they also did it to Huber as well. I mean, what sort of evidence do you have to have to get that sort of a gag order? I mean, did they just rubber stamp it? Basically?

Kash Patel 17:05
Well, you don't, you just need basically a good faith reason to say, if we don't have this, then we're going to jeopardize the investigation that we currently have, and it could harm national security. Now, when I was doing that, that actually meant something you didn't even in terrorism cases, we would get shot down because the judge was like, No, you didn't meet the threshold. So I can't imagine in a case like James O'Keefe or anyone else in the FBI is looking at, because they don't like what he's doing professionally. Nothing's unlawful. They just don't like James O'Keefe.

Charlie Kirk 17:34
That's unlawful to go after somebody because you don't like what they do. So I want to shift gears here, we actually haven't touched on this topic, which is Bill Barr is now on a kind of media circuit. So it's all-around, kind of a Hunter Biden laptop, whether or not it was real or not, direct election interference. And so Bill Barr was asked about this, I think on Fox News, let's play cut 31.

Bill Barr video clip 18:00
And I was shocked by that. And that, fortunately, the DNI came out and said, No, it's not disinformation. The FBI said the same thing. Media ignored it. So when you're talking about interference in an election, I can't think of anything more than knowing what you know of the case. Do you think that there is any legal liability for the president here? Perhaps not while he's in office? I wouldn't want to venture an opinion on that.

Charlie Kirk 18:28
I think the way he answered it is the answer, I think, in and of itself. So but do you think Bill Barr did what was necessary to make sure that people knew this laptop was real or do you think he just, he even handled, what do you think?

Kash Patel 18:43
No, I don't think he did enough at all. And I worked with Bill Barr, you know, at multiple different locations when I was running the intelligence community or back the White House running counterterrorism or helping Johnny Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence, who he referenced in this case, the number one law enforcement officer on planet Earth is the Attorney General. Is he literally going around on a book tour and saying, I didn't really know what was going on?

Charlie Kirk 19:06
He's peddling a book.

Kash Patel 19:06
I don't know. Oh, yeah. He's just came out with his book where he currently. where he takes me out. Yeah, he said, he thought President Trump's idea to make me the Deputy Director of the FBI showed a detachment from reality, because I didn't have the experience except the fact that he became Attorney General at 37. Let's put that aside.

Charlie Kirk 19:28
And then you were a former federal prosecutor...

Kash Patel 19:29
...and a public defender and an intelligence official and a terrorism official.

Charlie Kirk 19:33
So racist. I'm kidding!

Kash Patel 19:37
Of course.

Charlie Kirk 19:39
So Bill Barr comes after you in that way. Anything else or is that just kind of a one off comment?

Kash Patel 19:44
Oh, no, he comes after Trump. He comes after a lot of people. Yeah. And now he's going around doing this book tour on every fake news media channel including, and then unfortunately, Fox News has given him airtime. Instead, when we were working on matters like this, what should have happened is Bill Barr should have taken a more proactive approach on the Hunter Biden laptop, on a Russiagate investigation. We had to force these matters into the Department of Justice and show him over and over and over again before he would act.

Charlie Kirk 20:11
So but here's an open air concern. You and I are both friends of the president, President Trump. We're both in his orbit, and we both want to see him win again. But it seems like personnel was just a problem. Can you speak to that at all?

Kash Patel 20:24
100% Yeah. We did not have the right personnel from jump, and it crippled the presidency along with the Russiagate hoax for at least the first two to three years of his presidency. And that's basically all of it. We kept, or the the group in charge at whatever time, kept picking the wrong people. We finally started to get it right with the likes of, you know, Rick Pernell and Johnny Ratcliffe. And all those guys we started putting in place. But we have the bench, you know this. We have the bench. We just didn't pick the right people.

Charlie Kirk 20:25
Why weren't they picked?

Kash Patel 20:54
Because in this White House, there was too many competing political interest and people. For example, Devin and I were the outside guys, cowboys, coming in with this Russiagate stuff. And back when Trump got elected, almost the entire Republican party didn't even believe us, right? So when we would come in and say, No, we're right and here's the evidence, and these guys should be your FBI director or your CIA director, NSA Director. They'd be like, We're not gonna listen to you. We're gonna listen to the RINOs and the lofty nobility of the Republican establishment and put those people in. Remember, we got Chris Christie. Chris Christie gave us Chris Wray, as FBI director, you know. We got Rod Rosenstein from the crew of RINOs out there that he's the worst Deputy Attorney General and basically acting Attorney General...

Charlie Kirk 21:38
Because Sessions recused himself.

Kash Patel 21:39
Right. So these are just examples. Those are guys that should never have even been on the list. But they were because these political powerhouses got their hands into the, you know, the presidential...

Charlie Kirk 21:48
So you think second term, one of the things has to be kind of a promise that Trump is going to make different personnel choice, and I guarantee if Trump was sitting right here, he would agree with us. I mean, Mark Milley, he has nothing but bad things to say about him. You don't I mean, like the list. I think Trump agrees with us, I suppose that if there is a second term, one of the concerns his voters are going to have, the only concern I think they'll have is not are you going to do what you say you're going to do, but are you going to put the people in place to be able to do what you say you're going to do? Yeah.

Kash Patel 22:18
Yeah and, you know, how you solve that? You build the book now. And I believe that that's in process. And that's going... and then not only do you build the book now of who we're going to put in the cabinet, and deputies and undersecretaries, but then you make announcements on the campaign trail. If I win, this person is going to be head of FBI, this person head of CIA, this person head of DoD. Show the voters that that is the individual you have identified to lead your cabinet.

Charlie Kirk 22:39
I think that's terrific. The same way he did the Supreme Court picks basically. Yeah, so when I travel the country, I talk to the grassroots. The only thing people complain about with the Trump presidency is the personnel.

Kash Patel 22:52
And I was in it. And you you want to know what's sad? I fought the personnel within the Trump presidency as much as I fought the personal outside.

Charlie Kirk 23:03
No, I totally agree with that. And I have my own personal stories that I won't share of battles that I had, and I wasn't in the White House. I mean, I did plenty of things, hopefully for the betterment of the country. You did most of which didn't actually materialize. But boy, that was there. Plenty of battles, tons of battles. Okay. I want to get to this. The Hunter Biden laptop story. Just tell us your thoughts on where this all kind of stands right now.

Kash Patel 23:27
So there, for my best understanding, there is an open ctive criminal investigation by a United States Attorney in the Department of Justice against this. Now, what should have happened is when the New York Post and all these other companies broke the story as true and accurate, there should have been an immediate exploitation of that entire laptop and its contents by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. What happened was the continued politicization of the national security apparatus. Hunter Biden, we can't touch him. He's not Don Jr. We can't make up stories about him even though it looks like Hunter Biden is actually a criminal. Let's bury this thing. Let's not let it out during a presidential election cycle, thanks to the fake news media. And oh, by the way, all these people; remember the 51 intelligence officials, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, all these...

Charlie Kirk 24:09
That was one of the most fraudulent acts ever, ever.

Kash Patel 24:13
During a presidential election cycle.They knew it.

Charlie Kirk 24:15
And Politico was co-conspirators in that

Kash Patel 24:20
Oh, Politico. Everybody. Not just Politico.

Charlie Kirk 24:23
We did a whole show on this. And you're right, they all were but the first headline to be the most deceiving was Politico. Just the way they wrote it and, as you know, it just kind of started that funnel. And everyone then rewrote the Politico article.

Kash Patel 24:36
And you're right, that's all they needed. They needed a headline.

Charlie Kirk 24:38
Politico said: Laptop is Russian disinformation, comma 50 Intel agents former...It's the way they wrote it. And you're right. It was like so click-baity, like it captured the top of funnel.

Kash Patel 24:49
And you can't tell me, Charlie, and I know you agree with me that that didn't change voters minds in the middle, that 100 million...

Charlie Kirk 24:55
That Biden quoted in the debates. And so how do you think this is gonna play? I mean, like, is it realistic that Hunter's getting indicted? I mean, where does that...

Kash Patel 25:05
Look, I'm reading the little print media that I still read that's accurate ikcredible looks like he's going to get some form of indictment. And here's the problem, right? How is this administration going to execute what this attorney general that was appointed by his father is going to go to the White House and say, I'm indicting your son criminally. And his Dad's gonna go, I'm gonna pardon him. Like, and do we have any confidence that an actual special counsel can be appointed to mete out this which should have been done a long time ago? What is this attorney general Merrick Garland, by the way, remind you going to pick someone to unilaterally prosecute Hunter Biden? No. So I don't have confidence in the DOJ I used to work at because of the politicization.

Charlie Kirk 25:43
Yeah, and that's so disappointing, I suppose. Let's say Trump term two and I know some of our listeners don't like Trump, but he's gonna run. Like, I mean, yeah, it's just the way it is. Right. So I mean, and whether Trump term two basically is the only choice we have right now. It just is. So how do you clean up the DOJ?

Kash Patel 26:01
Same way, we were just talking about - personnel. You got to pick the right...

Charlie Kirk 26:04
Can you can really change the DOJ with better personnel?

Kash Patel 26:07
Here's the one thing I will say about my time in the Department of Justice. It was for the overwhelming part that 98% of the people that I worked with, were awesome. I had no idea what their political affiliations were. We were bringing amazing cases across the country and around the world. I had no idea. You know who the people that mucked it up? The leadership. Attorney General Eric Holder for Benghazi and the likes like that Loretta Lynch, and you know, Sally Yates, when you take out those the AG, the DAG, the Associate Deputy Attorney General's, and you put in place the 10 to 12 people to run that department the way it should be? Yes, I think you can fix it.

Charlie Kirk 26:40
So it's really a dozen.

Kash Patel 26:41
It's about a dozen. Yeah.

Charlie Kirk 26:42
But it's just not just one person, it's a dozen change-makers.

Kash Patel 26:46
Yeah.

Charlie Kirk 26:46
Now, the Attorney General Senate confirmed, right, but then that next can all just be appointed.

Kash Patel 26:53
No. All that 12 that I'm referencing are our Presidential appointed and Senate confirmed. That's what makes the difference.

Charlie Kirk 27:00
Got it. They have a lot of power, a lot of power.

Transcribed by Carol Allen for Ruby Ray Media