[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] “I don't think it's a coincidence that a month ago, 6 billion goes to Iran. And now their number one ally against the United States of America, writ large, Hamas, is doing a coordinated strike to America's number one ally, Israel.”
Kash Patel has previously served as Department of Defense chief of staff and is also a former terrorism prosecutor. We discuss his take on the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel as well as his new book, “Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy.”
In this deep dive, Mr. Patel explains his realizations about “the deep state,” how it functions, and possible strategies to deal with it.
"The Defense–Industrial Complex, as President Eisenhower warned us 60 years ago, is the biggest behemoth in and around the swamp. I think it's worse than every lobbyist group combined,” Mr. Patel said.
Interview trailer:
Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/kash-patel-on-the-israel-hamas-war-the-defense-industrial-complex-and-strategies-to-curb-the-deep-state-5509088
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek: Kash Patel, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Kash Patel: This is awesome and I'm so thrilled to be back. I'm reminded of our fun times on Kash's Corner, so I'm looking forward to this.
Mr. Jekielek: Absolutely. We're going to talk about your new book, Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth and the Battle for Our Democracy. First, I want to get into what's happening in Israel right now. Israel has declared war. Essentially, they were invaded by sea, by air, by land, and there were towns occupied by Hamas.
Mr. Patel: From a military standpoint, the planning, preparation, and operational preparation of the environment for an attack like this isn't a one-off. It's not a splinter group saying, "We're going to fire a couple of rockets from this location and do some damage and then we'll get some headlines." This was an air, land, and sea invasion through various vectors originating from Hamas and Hamas-funded groups as a coordinated strike plan into Israeli territories. That doesn't happen in a week. That is a lot of planning, but more importantly, that takes a ton of money.
Hamas is a Foreign Terrorist Organization [FTO] under United States law. What does that mean? They're fully sanctioned, which means they can't bank with U.S. companies, they can't do business with U.S. allies, and their access to money is sharply cut off throughout the rest of the world. We do the same thing with Iran, because the Iranian Quds Force and the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] are all FTOs. A lot of other countries have sought the same recognition of Hamas. Where do they get their money? You're not talking a million dollars, you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars to mobilize this kind of effort.
Mr. Jekielek: You were very critical of this recent decision to release $6 billion back to Iran.
Mr. Patel: It was probably personal, because I was involved in hostage affairs for President Trump. I always lead with this—bringing home Americans is a great thing. It is good every time you bring one home who has been detained or held unlawfully overseas, especially by America's enemies or terrorist organizations. But you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. There are more hostages out there, and there are going to be more hostages in the future. You have to ask, “Did we harm America's ability to get those folks back, just for a headline? Did we harm future hostage-taking matters by going to our number one enemy on planet earth?”
In terms of economics, we talk about Russia and China, but when we talk about sheer terrorism, it's Iran. Like Hamas, Iran is cut off from the world funding line. They are literally funded by flying in pallets of cash to continue to operate their economy and keep their currency afloat. What happened here that I thoroughly disagreed with is that the Biden administration gave Iran $6 billion, and we got some hostages back.
Then the Biden administration lied to the world. They said, "We are going to dictate how that money is spent, and we've told them it's going to be on humanitarian affairs." Don't listen to me countering that headline. The day after the money transfer, the president of Iran, who works for the Ayatollah, said, "Iran will spend this money however we please."
Speaker 3: What is your expectation of its use? We're told that it's for humanitarian purposes, food, and medicine. Do you believe you have the right to use that money in any way that you see fit?
Speaker 4: This money belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and naturally, we will decide, the Islamic Republic of Iran will decide to spend it wherever we need it.
Speaker 3: So if I hear you clearly that it will be used for more than humanitarian purposes in your view.
Speaker 4: Humanitarian means whatever the Iranian people need. So this money will be budgeted for those needs, and the needs of the Iranian people will be decided and determined by the Iranian government.
Mr. Patel: They're right. There's no mechanism for the United States to control this. This $6 billion specifically came from Korean banking institutions. It was frozen for a long, long, time under all these sanctions against Iran. They released that money to the Middle East, but the Middle East is not going to be the referee.
They're not going to say, "Okay. Here's $10 million for the food bank program. Here's $50 million for the homeless." Is the U. S. going to police the use of that money in Iran where we're not allowed, where we have no access to the intelligence infrastructure, banking infrastructure, or SWIFT [Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications] system?
Of course, they are going to spend the money as they see fit. It's not a coincidence that a month ago, $6 billion went to Iran, and now their number one ally against the United States of America, Hamas, is doing a coordinated strike on America's number one ally, Israel. I talk about it in the book. There are no coincidences in government. At this level, there definitely are not, and I'll always stick by that.
Mr. Jekielek: You did mention the declaration of war by the Israeli defense minister. Why does that change the equation in your mind?
Mr. Patel: As you know in America, it takes an act of Congress to declare war. The president can't go out and declare war. It's not exactly the same in Israel. There, the authority that arises when you declare war gives the premier vastly expanded executive authority to conduct that war. That's his job.
It's just like it would be here. If America formally declared war, the authority given to the Commander-in-Chief is massive. The options he has become exponential, not just with money, but also with equipment, with manpower, and how we operate with our allies.
Israel is saying, "We're at war." They're probably going to look West next and say, "Europe, are you with us? America, are you with us? If so, how are you with us?" This is probably going to be the most difficult national security issue the Biden administration has dealt with to date. Of course, they will need to say, "We support Israel." The Israelis have a large hangover from how the previous Trump administration treated them. We had a very public, very global partnership with Israel.
Let's not forget the Middle Eastern peace accords. Those have been completely lit on fire by this one strike, this one act of war alone. The Iranians and Hamas are already talking to the Saudis and saying, "What are you going to do?" Our goal was to continue full-on Saudi, Israeli, Middle Eastern peace negotiations, which were still developing. That's over now, at least for as long as this war goes on.
We will be talking about this for a long time, with the amount of moving pieces that are now on the board, and have yet to even get onto the board. This is going to be for months and months and months in my opinion. I don't see a quick resolution unless one side decides to unilaterally surrender.
Mr. Jekielek: Everything is currently developing as we speak. I've heard that Iran might be very close to having a nuclear bomb. Have you been following that?
Mr. Patel: That's a great point. The police officers for the nuclear arsenal in Iran are the UN-sanctioned cops. They are allowed into Tehran and around the country to their various nuclear sites. Iran is publicly saying, "We're only making fissile material, which is nuclear, weapons-grade material, in order to power our country. I've always thought that was a total pretext sham, but let's put that aside.
Americans weren't allowed in there, so we relied on the UN inspectors to go in and check what's the percentage, what's the weapons-grade, how far along they are, what their reactors are, if they are cooling, and all these indicators of how much stuff is being made and where. They tell Iran, “If you're doing it for energy, you need this much. If you're doing it for bombs, you need this much.” Iran kicked all the inspectors out of the country the day after the $6 billion and the hostage exchange occurred.
We were not getting the full story when we had the UN inspectors in the country, and now we have nobody. It's going to be almost impossible for us to figure out how far along they have come. I've been away from the intelligence on this for a while since I've been out of government, but I've always thought this was their plan.
I've always believed they were inching closer to making that material necessary for weapons, and that is very scary. It's an issue that doesn't get talked about a lot, but maybe it will be now. This administration, by permitting the funding of this proxy war by Hamas into Israel, also just gave Iran a huge cash injection for their nuclear program.
This is Iran, and we know they lie to the world. They do it all the time. Even if they stand up and say, "No, it's only for energy," we have no way of knowing that, because we don't have anyone in there anymore.
Mr. Jekielek: Any final thoughts on this? Then let's dive into the book.
Mr. Patel: We talked about who Israel is going to look for in terms of public allies. Who is Hamas going to get? What are the Middle East countries going to do? What are the signatories to the Abraham Accords going to do? What is Turkey going to do? We know what Iran is going to do. Iran is going to go around and try to galvanize a group of countries to back Iran and to back Hamas because of their joint "hatred" for Israel or actions taken by the Israeli government,
What is Jordan going to do? There are massive implications for Egypt. We don't have time to get into all the things involved. Remember how the Muslim Brotherhood caused the fall of the presidency in Egypt? Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. What are we doing with all that? The international implications are almost never ending.
Mr. Jekielek: Let's talk about your book, Government Gangsters.
Mr. Patel: Yes, let's do it, and I can't wait to dive in. We should tell our audience that I haven't been told what you're going to ask me, so this could get interesting.
Mr. Jekielek: I have some very basic questions. As you're introducing the book, you say, "I didn't know there was a deep state until somewhat recently." You keep hearing about this deep state. Then you hear that it is a conspiracy. Some people equate it with the administrative state. Are they the same thing? What is the deep state?
Mr. Patel: The definition will change, depending on who you ask. Having written the book and looking at it historically, we got signals about the deep state from President Eisenhower when he warned the world about the defense industrial complex, the behemoths that we have today. He saw it coming. He said, "The government needs to be aware of this. The government cannot be run by private sector organizations who continue to pay people who go in and out of government in a cyclical fashion."
We'll circle back on the defense industrial complex, but that was the beginning of it. It's not like we got a deep state overnight. This is years of degradation by people in leadership service positions who failed to do the job that they signed up to do. I had personal experience being the lead prosecutor at Main Justice for Benghazi, being the guy that found Hillary Clinton's emails in the discovery process, not being able to run with that, and not being able to run that Benghazi prosecution the way I wanted to and get all of the foreign terrorists who killed Americans.
It became a political thing in the Obama administration, and I was in the room when Holder was making these decisions. I thought, "Maybe that's a one-off of a really massive event.” But then fast forward, I leave the Trump Justice Department, I go to Capitol Hill, and I run Russiagate. That's when this all solidified for me. I saw the real nature of the FBI and DOJ that I worked with. We all know what happened afterwards when I was the chief investigator exposing it all. I even went to Devin Nunes, then chairman, who had hired me to run the investigation and said, "I don't even believe this. I think that maybe I'm the one who is lying."
I remember one day specifically, and I think I put it in the book. I walked into Devin's office to give him my weekly brief on Russiagate. This was one of the big ones on the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrants and how it was unlawful. Then we were putting out the facts about it, the withholding evidence of innocence and all the biases. He turns to me and says, "If you're going to start drinking this early in the morning, get out of my office," because it was crazy. The whole story of Russiagate that we now fully know today is almost unbelievable. It's like science fiction. But to me, it's not a Republican and Democrat thing, and that's one of the hitting points of my book.
I said, "I don't care about Rs and Ds." I probably named more Republican government gangsters in the book than Democrats. I learned they were an entrenched class together. The FBI, DOJ, DOD, CIA, and NSA coupled with the media, the biggest conspirator around, that is the deep state.
It was operating in a somewhat surreptitious fashion in the initial stages of the Trump presidency. After the four years of the Trump presidency, fast forwarding now two-and-a-half years into the Biden administration, it might need a new name, Jan. It can no longer be called the deep state. They're just out there doing it in public, because there's no accountability.
That is what ticks off Americans the most. The question I get asked the most is, “Where's the accountability for these folks who held senior positions in the DOJ and the FBI that commit crimes and are rewarded for that action by the entrenched DC swamp bureaucracy, and where the media is their glorifying, ego-padding machine?” I don’t have an answer as to where that accountability is going to come from.
Mr. Jekielek: I remember reading your very succinct explanation of Russiagate. Please try to recreate that, because it is incredible when you lay it out in these broad strokes in just a few sentences.
Mr. Patel: Okay, you put me on the spot here. This is going to be a pass or fail situation. When I tell folks the following, they have to realize it took me two years to get there. Would you believe in the 21st century America, a political party would go overseas and buy fake intelligence from an overseas asset, then use campaign dollars to purchase that information, funnel it back to the FBI and DOJ here in the United States of America, appear before a federal secret court and a federal judge and knowingly present information they knew to be false, and withhold information they knew would exonerate the posed targets, all to get a surveillance warrant on their political opponent? That is Russiagate.
Again, when you hear that, you think, "This guy is crazy." But multiple congressional investigations later, and the Durham report later, along with many other things that happened have degraded America's faith in the justice system. This causes a two-tier system of justice, which I often mention in the book.
Mr. Jekielek: One of the things that I've been charting is the development of the disinformation industrial complex. It's the combination of government agencies working with quasi-civil society organizations and legacy media. It's unclear exactly where the lines are between some of these organizations. There is pressure being exerted, there are threats, but there is also some ideological alignment. In the end, you have suppression of all sorts of information and the elevation of other information to the point where it appears that everybody agrees on something that very few actually believe.
Mr. Patel: I was talking about the cyclical nature of Washington, DC. If you're in a leadership position in government, you can leave only to come back in to help the people that were helping you along the way that knew where you were going to land. What do I mean by that? Let me give you an example that I raised in the book.
Brennan and Clapper were the heads of the intelligence community under Obama, the CIA Director and the Director of National Intelligence, the top two dogs. They were going into an election cycle, and they briefed then President Obama about this Hillary Clinton/Russiagate scandal. They knew about it, and the president knew it was coming, and he allowed it to occur. They didn't warn the incoming presidency about any of it. In fact, they got the FBI, James Comey and company, to withhold that information from the incoming Commander-in-Chief.
Why do I highlight Clapper and Brennan? Let’s fast forward and literally bring this up to a week ago. Brennan and Clapper were caught lying to Congress under oath; Brennan specifically lied to Congress about the CIA spying on Senate staffers, and Clapper specifically lied to Congress under oath about utilizing the FISA surveillance process to secretly surveil Americans. That happened and they both admitted it later. They both lied right across the street under oath in front of the whole world.
What was their reward? They have been glorified with contracts in the media. Let's put that aside. Whatever your feelings are on the border, just to bring this thing full circle, the Department of Homeland Security just rewarded Brendan and Clapper with two senior level board positions at the Department of Homeland Security to adjudicate the border crisis.
Two cabinet secretaries committed felonies by lying to Congress under oath, thwarted an incoming presidential administration with an investigation they knew was bogus and didn't tell anyone, and allowed the media to run that disinformation campaign roughshod over half of America so that they would vote in a certain way. That's the deep state out in the open, and that's what I mean when I say they're in it for themselves.
You asked an interesting point. What is their unifier and what makes them come together? It is their get Trump attitude. I wish there was another answer, but every time we go down the road of asking why these bad actors do this, that's where the road leads. Of course, they won't publicly admit this. In some way, shape, or form, their personal dislike and their desire to "be the ones that get Trump" continue the deep state juggernaut. That is not going to stop anytime soon.
Mr. Jekielek: A number of these people deeply believe and have a deep conviction that President Trump is an existential threat to America. But maybe for them is it just purely transactional, just business, and there's no belief involved? How do you see this?
Mr. Patel: No one has ever asked me that. The deep state operators are not on a mission doing it for service. They are doing it with that as the pretext. What do I mean by that? They will say, "We are upholding the DOJ, the FBI, the DOD and the intelligence agencies," and all roads just happen to lead to Donald Trump. But these are known liars. These are people who knowingly broke the law. I'm not just talking about Brennan and Clapper, I'm talking about James Comey, Andy McCabe, Gina Haspel, and the 17 other people that got fired or relieved of duty as a result of our little congressional investigation.
The media hires them and says, "This was the deputy director of the FBI. Look at what he has to say now.” They get six, seven figure contracts, and they'll continue their disinformation narrative by saying, "We believe in full commitment to the Constitution and accountability, and that's why we think Donald Trump is a threat." They have blended this narrative together with facts that don't exist. The media wants that narrative to proceed just as much as they do. Now the counter argument is, "Look at you, Kash Patel, attacking these brave Americans."
Mr. Jekielek: There was a lot of information seeded into the system around Covid, saying, “You're supposed to use masks. These vaccines will be perfectly safe and effective.” A great number of people seem to be unable to accept new information that changes those statements. My view is they were propagandized into believing something that wasn't true.
Maybe people wanted to believe it was true. It turned out not to be true, but now they are unable to change their minds. It's a scary reality. Covid wasn't the first blast of information. Before that, Trump derangement syndrome was a real thing. There are people that deeply believe things that do not comport with reality, specifically with respect to Trump. This is the ecosystem that we're in today.
Mr. Patel: We talked about Russiagate. We now know that it happened just like you said. Half of America literally thought Donald Trump was a Russian asset. The media was pushing that and it was in the headlines over and over again. That was the justification to launch an investigation into a sitting president of the United States. That was the justification for the people that were fired and who led that operation to go to the media and say, "We did it because we thought Donald Trump was a Russian asset."
We now know unequivocally from John Durham and our investigation that there was never a lawful basis to launch any investigation into Trump or any of his associates. Do you know how powerful that statement is for a prosecutor? They're saying you couldn't have done any surveillance, have any investigation made, have any phone call sent out, or issue any subpoenas. It was totally unlawful.
That means he wasn't a Russian asset. He wasn't even close, and neither were any people in his universe. Look at the 51 Intel letter which was a similar type of operation. Three CIA directors, an NSA director, a Secretary of Defense, and senior level other intelligence officers signed the letter, knowing that a week before the election, the Biden campaign and Tony Blinken wanted the CIA to get in front of this and say, "Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation." Half of America believed it.
If you go out there and talk to many Americans like you and I do, you find that they based their vote in that presidential election on that piece of disinformation. Now you have two major events that literally led to the rigging of presidential elections. The commonality is it's the get Trump thing, and the commonality is the characters that are involved.
You see the same folks and their proteges coming up again. What do I mean by that? For example, the two individuals that are the number two and three at the Justice Department today, Lisa Monaco and John Carlin, were the heads of Homeland Security and the National Security Division when I worked at the DOJ, and they were the ones that launched Russiagate. Now, they're in charge of the DOJ.
The point that you hit on that is of such consequential importance is America doesn't find out about this until two years later. America didn't catch on about Russiagate until 2018. They didn't catch on about Hunter Biden's laptop until two years after that Intel letter. They didn't catch on about the Covid origins, which Epoch has been reporting on truthfully, and one of the only places that has been doing so. They thought it was another Donald Trump conspiracy, and that it couldn't have come from this Wuhan lab in China. The intelligence community had no information to that effect.
Whatever your belief is or thoughts are on the former president or the current president, this pattern of conduct and the people that walk through the revolving door in Government Gangsters is a reality that can only be created by this machine called the deep state.
Mr. Jekielek: Kash, this topic of how our information ecosystem affects us is very important. There's a whole bunch of people out there who deeply believe that doing unethical things is actually the right thing to do. I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with that.
I want to talk more about your formative years. You took a trip to Tajikistan. You had to return to the U,S. very quickly because a judge demanded it. Please tell me the story, because it’s one of the most enjoyable moments in the book.
Mr. Patel: I'll give you the quick version. I was a national security prosecutor. We had just charged a terrorist in the state of Texas with a couple of terrorist offenses, namely, they were trying to figure out a way to blow up a shopping mall in Texas. We had finally indicted that guy after a multi-year investigation. You then take that case and put it on the side and get back to what else is still out there.
At the time, we were chasing down the Amir for special operations for ISIS, and that led us to Tajikistan. We were building a prosecution on him. I thought, "Okay. We've got a little bit of time here. Let's go over there and do the work." We got over there, did the work, and then I got a phone call from the DOJ.
On his own, the judge had issued a hearing in chambers, not in public, to talk about classified information and how we're going to handle it. That wasn't supposed to happen, and the attorneys in Texas didn't know how to handle it, so I had to get back. I was 22 hours away, but I got back. I was wearing this type of outfit, but I didn't have a full suit on. I had a jacket, a shirt, and pants.
I go straight into the judge's chambers, and the first thing I do is apologize. I said, "I just came from the airport from overseas for this hearing. I would normally have a suit. I'm sorry, Your Honor." He didn't like that and proceeded with the hearing. I knew at the start what it was about then.
We had been told this judge in Houston doesn't like DOJ attorneys for some reason, or doesn't like Washington. In the past, he had actually had some issues with Indian American lawyers that appeared before him, but I don't ever care about that stuff. I just didn't want this hearing to get messed up and the prosecution of this terrorist to get messed up.
He ends up demanding to see my airport boarding pass and my passport. He launches into a barrage at me with the defense attorney there and my two guys that are supposed to be my colleagues from the Justice Department's Texas office. They're just sitting there and loving it. I could have blown a gasket, but I kept my cool because the mission mattered more.
Fast forward, the guy eventually gets convicted, and no classified information was leaked. That was the win along with the conviction, and we maintained the integrity of that conviction. That was a win, so it couldn't be reversed on appeal, but what I did see was the cowardice of the DOJ. I came back here and they said, "Heads are going to roll." I even specifically discussed this matter with then Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. They did nothing.
You would think when a lawyer who does the job for them gets attacked by an Article III judge, they would do something, but no one wanted to take that on. The ironic thing is my colleagues tell me that because we were in chambers, there's a transcript of the entire hearing and it's public now. They used that transcript to train future lawyers on how to act in the most difficult of situations with the harshest of judges, even when you know that you are right on a fact of the law.
I was pretty peeved when I got on the plane after that hearing, but it was a learning experience for me. It wasn't a political thing. This was before Trump. The question was, "Aren't you going to have the back of the federal prosecutor who's doing the work that the Attorney General and the DAG sent me out to do?" They all failed. They all shied away from it. I called them out for it, and then more fake news stories about me appeared.
Mr. Jekielek: What was interesting in that story is that there was some activity internally. The problem that you had was that there was no action externally.
Mr. Patel: Right, that's a great distinction. I told the leadership at the DOJ at the time, "Look, I don't care if this guy yelled at me." I’m an Indian American who grew up in Queens in the '80s and '90s, and I've been called a lot of things. I've been called a lot of nasty things by much better people than that judge.”
But they just sent around a few internal emails and said, "This is horrible and this should never happen." If a judge overreaches like he did here, the point is that we need to protect our future prosecutors and to protect the integrity of the court system. Because as we are now quickly learning, judges have become activists. When they put on the robe, they're supposed to take off the R and D or whatever label they have politically and mete out justice.
That taught me that maybe they will even inject politics or convictions that shouldn't be there to steer a case or investigation one way or the other. My main point was that this was going to come up over and over again as I went on in my career. This story was written up by national media outlets.
They literally said I was incompetent because the judge said I was incompetent in that hearing, but they didn't bother to read it. This comes up time and time again. I don't care what people think about me, but if he did it to me, who else has he done it to, and who's he going to do it to next time? Then other judges might say, "I can get away with this.”
Mr. Jekielek: In the end, you actually secured the conviction, which would suggest competence.
Mr. Patel: Yes, but not if you ask the team down there in Houston. Ultimately, that's all that matters. That's why in the book you see the mission first approach over and over, whether it's at the DOJ, at the DOD, or the intelligence community. That's what you did because you signed up to serve the mission. I wasn't going to get into a personal political argument with this judge and jeopardize not just the conviction, but also classified information which we were using to prosecute other ongoing active terrorism cases. We didn't let that happen.
Mr. Jekielek: Why did Congressman Devin Nunes want to bring you on for Russiagate specifically, before you even knew what it was?
Mr. Patel: I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't even know who Devin was. I was an executive branch prosecutor guy, and had gone over to the military and civilian special forces stuff. I was just working on national security stuff. I didn't pay attention to the Hill or any of that, except maybe a headline story here or there. I met Devin because a mutual friend of ours wanted help getting a job in the Trump administration. It was just random.
We were sitting in his office. I tell the story in the book in greater detail, but long story short, he just said, "What do you do?" He was just being polite. I said, "I'm a terrorism prosecutor. I was over at JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] for a while doing Intel," He's like, "Oh, no way." This was before Russiagate was a thing, but House Intel had known that they were going to get charged with that investigation.
On the spot, he and his team asked me, "Would you be willing to leave DOJ and come over and do this job?" I said, "Absolutely not." I enjoyed what I was doing, and I just didn't envision myself on Capitol Hill. That's how it started.
Mr. Jekielek: What was the job that they wanted you to do?
Mr. Patel: They said, "Since you had handled FISAs and used the FISA process to go after terrorists and been before the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] and did the applications, and since you had an intelligence background with your time at JSOC, this is what we need for Russiagate." We were talking about the DOJ, FBI, and Intel coming together. They knew more than I did at the time because I wasn't really paying attention to much more than what's in the media. That's why they needed someone to lead the investigation who had done that work, so that Congress knew what to ask for during their constitutional oversight hearings. The rest is history.
Mr. Jekielek: Why did you want to work in the Trump administration?
Mr. Patel: The only job I ever wanted, Jan, was to run counterterrorism. I was a counterterrorism guy by background, and that's what I did. We manhunted terrorists. We figured out what to do with them, how to prosecute them, how to do a kinetic strike, how to give them to a host nation, and how to try them in some arena of justice.
I thought that was the greatest job. I wanted to learn how to do it at the operational level and then build a bigger policy picture from the central government perspective to say, "This is what we should be doing with Al-Qaeda, with ISIS, with AQI, and with hostage affairs.
I went over there to Devin, but I had never met Trump. I literally didn't know him. I told him, "I'll make you a deal. Whatever we find in the investigation, we put out." He says, "Done." He also said, "I will do everything I can to get you that job of Head of Counterterrorism in the White House." After we completed the investigation and after some stalling by Bolton at the National Security Council, I went over there, and shortly after became Head of CT.
It was the greatest job, and I loved it. It was awesome. We had the greatest team. We changed the landscape of how we go after terrorists. For me, that was it, and I thought that I was good. I said, "I can just stay here and do this job." There were no plans. There was no, "What am I going to do next?" I got there and said, "This is great."
Mr. Jekielek: In the book you talk about reforms, and I know these are very important to you. These have been percolating over the years and we've talked about some of them on Kash's Corner. You talk about the Justice Manual. I had never heard of that until I read your book, but there's a lot of policy in there that has to be followed. You were saying that very small changes to that manual could actually have very profound implications for getting away from the two-tier system of justice that has developed.
Mr. Patel: Anybody can highlight the problems. The purpose of the book was to not just tick people off with what has happened, but how to fix it. That is the mission of my book, Government Gangsters. You can fix all the problems that we've discussed here and more. Accountability is at the core of that mission set. How do you execute that mission for justice, because we've seen the fracture in the system of justice? Whether you believe that or not, let's put that aside and look at the United States Attorney's Manual [USAM], the DOJ policy book that you're talking about.
It has been in place for decades, and the last major change to it was from Attorney General Ashcroft. It talks about things that so many AGs and DAGs have referred to as Justice Department principles or Justice Department policy. I always thought that was ironic to hear from the head law enforcement officer. Shouldn't you be saying this is Justice Department law?
I looked into why they weren't saying that, because they were basing that off the USAM, the DOJ policy book. Specifically, just to bring this thing all the way up to speed, Attorney General Garland just gave an interview on national TV where he said, "The DOJ's longstanding policy has been not to interfere in presidential elections, not to investigate people, and not to publicly announce investigations." We've seen how they've handled that with Trump and Biden.
For the first time, I heard them say, "We won't do it if it's near in time to the election." But if you go back to the AGs before him, they would say, “One to two years before an election.” Where is this written down? Where is this timeline? I've been looking for it. Yes, the Attorney General is the only one that can change the United States Attorney's Manual. He can do it with a stroke of a pen. Has it been changed?
I'll give you another great example—jurisdiction. Everybody asked me, “Why are all these Jan 6 cases being brought in Washington, DC?” Again, it's another legal fiction. In the United States Attorney's Manual, it specifically says we should bring these types of cases in Washington, DC, not that we shall, because the Constitution obliterates that.
Jurisdiction lies where any component of the crime took place. If we're talking about a USB stick that was bought in a store in Arkansas and used in Washington, DC, the prosecution lies in Arkansas. It's just that the DOJ, whether it's Republican or Democrat, has metastasized policy to become tantamount to law, but it's not law.
It hasn't been challenged and it hasn't been talked about. The power that those little tweaks wield is monumental. That same policy on special counsels is a whole other conversation. When it comes to special counsels the manual says, “You shall appoint one from without the Department of Justice.
Why have the last three special counsels have all been current DOJ employees? The DOJ is literally violating its own policy that it says is the law, and we're not supposed to ask questions about it. Garland goes out there and says, "Weiss is a Trump appointee, and Durham was a bar appointee." That is a total deflection.
If our institution of justice and its leader can go out there and lie about the law or manipulate it and have no consequences, that's why that manual needs to be put out. It's not classified and anyone can go get it. We need a uniform structure of law that governs, not DOJ principles and years-long policy, but this is just how we've done things in recent times.
You've always heard people go to Congress and testify about it. It ticks me off to no end. You hear an AG or DAG go up there and say, "This is how we've done things." Not one member of Congress has said, "What's the basis for that in law ?" That to me is the deep state in action.
Mr. Jekielek: You just alluded to the increase of administrative power in America. A lot of decisions that typically would be made by the legislative branch are being made by agencies, people that have been bureaucrats for a long time. There are even legal precedents that lead to this like the Chevron deference. One of the things you talk about is a Schedule F appointment. Please remind people what that is all about.
Mr. Patel: If I can, I'm going to get a Schedule F appointment myself. It's one of the core solutions I talk about in my book. Another myth that decades-long government bureaucrats repeat over and over again is, “You can't terminate government employees.” I ask, "Where does it say that?”
Are you telling me that if a government employee violates his oath of office, breaks his ethical duties, breaks the law, breaks the chain of command, that you can't fire them? Are they allowed to do that at the DOD? A Justice Department lawyer can just say, "I've got this job and I've been here for 20 years. It doesn't matter what I do."
In my book, I highlight over and over again the people who did break their oath of office, the law, policy, ethics, or the chain of command, and then were rewarded for it, which is a whole other problem. When I was Deputy Director of National Intelligence in the Trump Administration, we were actually able to go to the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, and eliminate hundreds of positions, because you can do this. But nobody wanted to be the guy or gal in the media saying, "You took away seats from the national security mission," which was the disinformation twist to what we were doing.
We were reducing duplicative efforts and I outlined this in the book. If the CIA is doing one thing and they're doing it really well, I don't need 50 people doing the same thing in another building to jam up the process, so that it takes longer to get a question answered. That puts the national security apparatus in an empirically disastrous position.
If you have a Command-in-Chief and an executive branch that are willing to have your back, you can do a lot of the work that leads us to Schedule F. Schedule F appointments were created because they got so tired of trying to remove the folks that had committed crimes. You're talking about McCabe, Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, and James Baker, all these bad actors.
It ticks me off that we even needed to create a whole new Schedule F. But if that's the solution, that's what I push forward. It goes after the same endpoint that we are trying to get to—government accountability. I understand that people want anyone in government to be prosecuted if they break the law. But at the very least we can eliminate them from their government jobs. Taking away their security clearance is another thing I talk about in the book.
If a president wanted to, he could reclassify the majority of these positions as Schedule F appointments where you would be hired and fired at will. What's scaring a lot of the public is that President Trump has put this policy forward saying, "We're going to do this." Then you start hearing that swamp policy that says, “You can't remove government employees.” It's a complete fiction. Whether it's Schedule F or a combination of the two, I'm obviously all for it, because we need to hold government more accountable than we do the everyday citizen.
The deep state isn't just in the executive branch, it's in the judiciary, and it's in the legislative branch. We teamed up with Congress too, because they have the power of the purse and they pay for these positions. If you get Congress to zero out those positions that are unnecessary, that waste taxpayer dollars, and that slow down the national security mission, then you've also eliminated that position.
There's a combined way to get to that goal. I don't want to be the guy that removes a parent's ability to take care of their family, but you signed up to serve. We're not forcing you to serve. If you fail the American people in the mission, you shouldn't be there.
Mr. Jekielek: From your time working at a number of agencies, how much waste or how many excess positions did you see in these agencies?
Mr. Patel: At least a third if you take every agency, combine them, and do the law of averages. That's a lot, and that terrifies people. The other thing I learned, whether it was at the DOJ, DOD, CIA, NSA, or ODNI or the White House, these agencies and departments saw that the public way to justify their existence was their expansion. They said, “We have to go to Congress and we have to ask for this amount of money.”
After becoming part of that budgeting process, these agencies and departments actually had money left over. They would literally say, "If we don't spend this, we're going to get less from Congress next time. Somebody go spend it." That was insane. What do you mean you can't give taxpayer dollars back because you did a good job and did it for less?
This problem metastasizes in the deep state. They get out there and say, "We need a thousand more positions because we need a thousand more FBI agents on the streets chasing down criminals." If that were the case and that was the purpose and there was a justifiable need for it, great. But you just keep expanding that again and again. This degradation of government isn't like a year or two old, it is decades old. You keep adding and adding and adding, and then you get what is called mission creep. I don't think I've discussed this before.
Mission creep means if the DOD is doing it, then why is the IC also doing it? Why is one creeping into the other’s mission set? If the CIA is doing it, why is the ODNI also doing it? Each one of those agencies and departments have critical missions they do best. That's why they exist. Mission creep is this expansion of positions that allows people to say, "We're going to bring you this guy and he's going to be great. We're going to make this fusion cell and give it a fancy name like the Hostage Rescue Fusion Cell. It's going to be great."
Sadly, what they're mostly doing is printing headlines for the media that don't accomplish the very objective they set out to. It all becomes political. That's another thing I get into in Government Gangsters. I ask, "What did this fusion cell solve? Who did you bring home? What's your justification for a thousand new DOD positions?" I'm not the guy that's ever going to argue against national security for America. But I am the first guy that says there is government waste, fraud, and abuse across the board, and a lot of positions just don't need to exist.
The joint chiefs of staff are probably going to hate that, and I talk about that in my book. I say that we need to eliminate 50 percent of the positions of the joint chiefs. What is that? Those are the general officers, the flag officers, and the four-star officers in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. It's too much of a fraternity. There is just too much glad-handing going on, "How am I going to get my next star? You got to give me this position. If I kiss up to you, then you’ll do it." People are put in command of large nodes of the United States military and have no experience doing it.
I learned something as the Chief of Staff at DOD. The joint chiefs have zero role in the chain of command at the Department of Defense. That's not because I said it, it’s because Congress said it in 1951, and it's been the law ever since. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and everyone below him is there to advise the president upon request.
We've seen the mission creep there spread, "If you don't do this, then the Air Force won't get their new planes. If you don't do this, you won’t get the funding to register new people to be in the Army next year." I've seen that game play out behind closed doors. I just didn't see a need for a lot of it, but I did see a need for some of it.
This is how to sum it up. When you have these billets and positions added over years and years, each year they're looking to justify their existence. Every year, that's another cog in the process that either slows you down or gets you to no instead of getting you to yes. A big problem causing that is the Office of General Counsels at all these agencies and departments.
As a former lawyer, I'm telling you that the biggest problem we have in some of these agencies and departments is the massive amount of lawyers that exist. It is mind-boggling. You have FBI lawyers pretending to be prosecutors, and you have prosecutors pretending to be the lawyers for the FBI agents. What are we doing here? Then you're fighting each other.
That's Washington, DC, and it needs to change if we're going to help secure our national security mission, the law enforcement mission, the judiciary, and oversight in Congress. It's not an overnight fix, just like it wasn't an overnight problem. It's going to take a massive lift.
Mr. Jekielek: Your boss at DOD, Chris Miller, believes that to make the U.S. military stronger, we need to reduce its funding, which is very counterintuitive. It sounds like you agree with this.
Mr. Patel: Yes. The media will immediately take this clip and say, "Kash Patel is all for slashing the Department of Defense budget." Yes. The defense industrial complex, as President Eisenhower warned us 60 years ago, is the biggest behemoth in and around the swamp. It's worse than every lobbyist group combined.
I'll be the first one to tell you that the Raytheons, the Lockheeds, the Boeings, the Northrop Grummans, and the submakers do great work. But I've literally seen billions of dollars set ablaze in the sky due to incompetence. Then we give them another $10 billion contract. Why?
We need to eliminate some of this wasteful spending. I go into the defense industrial complex in massive detail in the book. We have these secretaries of defense who were once working in the defense industrial complex. They go into these senior level, under secretary or secretary positions. When they leave the DOD, they go right back to that defense company for a 10-figure payday. We have to break that cycle.
Too many military uniformed officers are just setting up their next job, "Remember that big plane contract I got for company X? Now, I'm going to go work for Company X." There's nothing stopping that. The response in the media is, "Who's going to cut the Department of Defense's budget? They've got to keep growing and growing and growing and growing." Now, they're going to say, "Why are you giving so much money to Ukraine? The DOD needs a bigger budget."
Mr. Jekielek: This stuff isn't really academic. Right now, we have this war in Israel. We have no idea where that's going to go. You suggested that it's a real possibility the U.S. may get involved. There is also a huge commitment to supporting Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine War.
Mr. Patel: I'll tell you just real quick on the Israel-Hamas situation. You know who's already involved? The defense industrial complex. The lobbyist industry and the DOD industrial complex are already ramping it up. We'll soon see it broadcast in the news, “We've got to send this and that over to Israel. We've got to provide them with equipment and manning and training. We thought we only needed 500 million widgets, but we need 5 billion widgets.”
Mr. Jekielek: That might actually even be a good policy decision.
Mr. Patel: Agreed. But this is our shortfall. If we bring aiding Ukraine into the discussion, we have depleted seven years' worth of our surface to air missiles. What does that mean? If the United States of America built surface-to- air missile defense systems at the rate we do now, in seven years we would be back to normal. That's not the only place this has happened.
What are we going to give them? It's not like we can make this stuff overnight. We're pretty good at it, but these weapons are complicated, and these systems are complex. The training on upkeep and maintenance takes years for our allies overseas. You're going to see a knee jerk reaction. What I talk about in the book a lot of times is an overcorrection in government.
They're going to come in big and fast to sell it to the media and say, "We're going to donate X amount of billions." Then you're going to ask, "Okay. What are you spending it on?" The real answer is that you are spending it at the DOD on multi-year contracts for defense industrial systems, and they're going to get paid no matter what.
Who's going to oversee that money? Who's going to police that money year after year? By the time we catch up to it, we've got another Afghanistan costing two trillion, not to mention the blood loss there, and we have no oversight into where the majority of that money is going. Just like in Ukraine, we have no oversight or ability to see where that money is going. That's just a wrecking ball when it comes to accountability. But some in this complex prefer it that way because that's how they get the money.
Mr. Jekielek: This feels like a difficult thing to unwind, especially when there's a lot of commitments that are made, some of which may be important. There is a lot of discussion about what the correct policy is. But when you're in the midst of all this, how do you make these changes?
Mr. Patel: You got to go in with a multi-year, multi-branch plan to implement these changes. You need to get with Congress. You need to get rid of the lobbyists and the defense industrial complex noise for a little while. You need to sit down and figure out what we actually need in this country in every single line of effort, and then figure out how to fund it.
This is a conversation for another day. We're being topical, so the speaker of the house just got ousted for the first time in U.S. history for the first time in 235 years. I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of it, but what you have is a group of people who were supremely ticked off at continuing resolutions. Continuing resolutions are technically illegal by Congress' own law, but Washington has been governing in the CR fashion for 25 years.
We don't have single-issue spending bills that they're supposed to appropriate and legislate and vote on one at a time. That has led to a fury among a lot of the American public, not the congressmen and women. That combines with what you're seeing in the Ukraine and what you might see with Israel and Hamas. You just have to say, "Why can't we just have a working Congress and an executive branch?"
Imagine if we were actually passing budgets that we were supposed to be passing. You would be able to firmly reduce the amount of waste in agencies and departments. You took it head on and did not kick the debt ceiling can down the road yet again, and not had another CR in omnibus. Omnibus is just fancy for, "Here's a thousand pages of law. You have one hour to vote on it." That's literally what an omnibus is, and it covers every three letter agency you can imagine. How is that good governance?
Now, I'm not saying what happened at the Capitol was right or wrong. These are the issues that have led up to today and they're all colliding together. This is a rare moment in our history to correct our course, and that's what I talk about in the book.
Mr. Jekielek: Since we're talking about what happened in Congress and this unprecedented upheaval, let's talk about where the silver lining is in that.
Mr. Patel: People have now learned that there's a good chunk of this country that doesn't want to see this type of financial waste, and that's what we've been talking about. A good amount of people have now become aware of how to prevent this, and how to make it so that Congress can’t do this.
It's not a Republican and Democrat thing. This has been a major civics education, and that's always good. The more Americans you can educate on how the government works and how it should work is a massive win.
The flip side is also true. What if the Republicans install a speaker that underperforms? You've taken on a majority position, and what are we doing with just running the government? Is it going to stall for long? Maybe they will get a better speaker. I don't know the answer to that. From a political standpoint, I was talking to a lot of my friends who are elected officials, and their concern was that the Republicans have a very small majority.
Kevin McCarthy was able to raise a prolific amount of money, and that's what it takes to win elections. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. A lot of the seats won that gave the Republicans the majority was because they hit the fundraising hard. They were able to travel and go through their districts and get with people and message and advertise, and that's what elections take.
Their message to me was that we're in jeopardy of losing the majority, and that's the balance. I keep telling people you can't have 100 percent of 100 percent. Our founding fathers never wanted this country governed in that fashion. We shouldn't vote based on that fashion because you're never going to find another American who's 100 percent on 100 percent.
Compromise is a big part of it, but what we're seeing in government these last few decades is not compromise. There are people being bought from outside influence that has been coming in. That means Congress has been stalling everything from budget to constitutional oversight. You're seeing a mechanical failure of the legislative, judicial, and executive branch, and it's come to a head.
It's going to be a rough year. I don't know what's going to happen in the next election cycle, but there is a lot at stake. The reality is that when things are so bad, you can find the solutions, but you have to be in a position to implement them. We'll see how that goes.
Mr. Jekielek: The number one reform that you mentioned in your book is aggressive congressional oversight. You have argued many times on Kash's Corner that that isn't happening.
Mr. Patel: This is one thing I learned firsthand from my time running the Russiagate investigation. I learned it again from looking back into what the Democrats had been doing with the Jan 6 committee when they had the majority. I am now looking at the Republicans with the oversight investigations of the DOJ and FBI. I've seen two different ways in which constitutional congressional oversight has been conducted. The Republicans have failed to meet the mark on a lot of factors.
Again, it’s the two-tier system of justice. This deep state is not just in the courtrooms, it's here in Congress with our constitutional oversight. You have individuals holding senior positions in government who are subpoenaed, and they violate those subpoenas by not producing the documents. They owe this to Congress under the authority of a subpoena, and they violate this continuously. This is eroding the Constitution and setting it on fire.
Congress has all but ceded its constitutional oversight authority to the executive branch that is actually supposed to report to Congress. These folks like Garland and Ray have come in and made it almost beneath them to go over there and testify. Then it takes a literal act of Congress to get one document from one subpoena, and then it's 60 percent redacted.
The question is, why is Congress allowing this to occur? They've done some great work. There's been some brave whistleblowers, and I used to work with a lot of these people. But the amount they've left on the field has left constitutional oversight in tatters in Congress. Maybe that's one thing the new speaker can perform better on.
I was a target of the Jan 6 committee and the first guy subpoenaed, and I have no problem with that. They could have just asked me to come in, and I would've come in and told the truth. That's their job. But how they went after people who didn't show up for subpoenas or didn't cooperate or who didn't produce documents was drastically different from what we've seen in these last 10 months. The last check was the judiciary, but that's a different conversation.
Mr. Jekielek: Different in that they were very serious about doing it?
Mr. Patel: They were overly aggressive. Those committees abused their constitutional oversight authority to personalize and politicize and mete out a weaponized system of justice from Congress, but they also showed you what the actual authority is if you were to use it appropriately. I haven't seen a lot of that authority utilized here.
I talk about one in particular, fencing, which is taking pockets of money from agencies and departments that are not doing their mission, that are not complying with Congressional subpoenas, and not providing the witnesses that Congress wants to talk to.
It keeps coming back to the question of how it will reflect on a current election cycle, but it's not the role of the executive branch to make that decision. I've told members of Congress, "You're doing some great work, but you really got to go all in and get aggressive, because a lot of America has realized over these years that you are responsible for keeping these agencies and departments in check. When you don't, the system fails. The media is okay with that because it advances a certain political narrative. That is completely destructive to our constitutional republic.”
Mr. Jekielek: Has the fencing of money ever been applied? It really isn't something that's been used very often, but it seemed to be very effective.
Mr. Patel: Fencing is congressional terminology. It is a mechanical maneuver in Congress to take pockets of money. You need the speaker's permission to do it. We only got it once, but we saw thousands of documents come in the next day, so it worked. But this Congress, when they issue these new CRs, these new budgets, they haven't trimmed any of the fancy government-funded private jet rides.
I'm not talking about defunding the police or the FBI or the DOJ. I'm actually the guy that tells you you can't do that. But I'm the guy that tells you there's waste, fraud, and abuse. I ask, “Why is this guy flying away on vacation on a G5 that we pay for, but you can't take that line item out of the budget and ground the jet until he at least complies with all the subpoenas that are out there?”
Why can't I say, "The FBI is not going to get a new headquarters department that's twice the size of the Pentagon in Maryland until you reform this FBI"? This is simple stuff, and it begs the question, “Why hasn't Congress acted?” They have the power of the purse, but they haven’t used it to maximize constitutional oversight. It's another thing I talk about in the book.
Mr. Jekielek: What's your theory?
Mr. Patel: On where it goes?
Mr. Jekielek: No, your theory on why.
Mr. Patel: It revolves around the lobbyist industry and the defense industrial complex. A lot of it is fundraising for campaigns, and what PACs are getting money from who. The Amazons and Googles and Facebooks and Twitters and every small company underneath them are spending money to make sure laws go in place that help them increase their bottom dollar. That's part of the American process. That has overtaken the powers that members of Congress should be executing. They have become beholden to these companies for that financing and that funding to be reelected. It's just completely out of control.
Mr. Jekielek: Your book is finally out and I really enjoyed it. I hadn't realized how important our adventure at Kash's Corner was to helping set up your broad themes. It was a pleasure and an honor to see that. This book took a long time. It was completed a lot earlier and we thought it would be published a lot earlier.
Mr. Patel: You're right, Kash's Corner was critical to writing this book. The fun part was sitting down every week and asking what we can do better and how we can go forward. We were able to stitch the book together in relatively short order. We wrote it in about three to four months.
This goes back to the central point of the book, the deep state. The administrative state is in random places of government. There's a book review process if you need a security clearance, which I'm all for. If you leave the government, you submit the manuscript and it takes two to three months. They want to make sure no classified information slips out. I get that. I used to be on that side doing that. It's totally fine.
This is what happens 10 months later. Your manuscript has been frozen, by the way. The book is out in October of this year, and I had finished my manuscript in October of last year. Just think about that for a second. I couldn't change the manuscript for a whole year, and they wouldn't let me release it until now.
I had to file a federal lawsuit against the Biden administration and the nine agencies and departments that had my manuscript for review. That's unheard of. It usually goes to the last station of service. For me, that would have been DOD. They sent it to eight more.
When we pressed them on it they said, "There's a lot of classified stuff. We got to review this. You're talking about Baghdadi and Soleimani and hostages." I responded, “With my background, I am competent enough to make sure I didn't put in classified information. but if I did, just tell me what it is. Block it out or delete it, and we'll move on."
After we finally filed the lawsuit, it was shocking to see how fast they worked. They returned it, and the word count is less than 0.05 percent of my book is redacted. I'll be able to tell you someday the words that were redacted. My attorney and I were literally laughing out loud. We knew the whole thing was a setup and a delaying tactic, because what they redacted was completely meaningless.
We just said, "We'll accept this." I don't think anyone's ever done this in the history of a government review. I took DOD's letter and pasted it right into the front of the book, so that the American public can see what they tell you needs to be done and how they delayed the book. I'm just glad it's out. I don't know that I'll do it again, Jan, but I'm very thankful to the team at Epoch for making this a reality, because it's hard to sum up 16 years.
Mr. Jekielek: Kash Patel, it's such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Mr. Patel: Thanks for having me back, my friend. This has been a delight for me.
Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Kash Patel and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.
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 “Jan” for 20% off.
-
Follow American Thought Leaders on social media:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader
![How California’s Policies Forced Me to Give Up My Farm & Move to Texas: Mollie Engelhart [FULL EP]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UxdmxrC8NGA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Dr. Paul Marik: Key Strategies You Aren’t Told That Help Prevent Cancer [FULL EPISODE]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yS3A4yO08g4/mqdefault.jpg)
![What’s Behind the Push to Stop Eating Beef?–Texas Slim [FULL EPISODE]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/siOvshyf6aM/mqdefault.jpg)
![7 Shen Yun Artists Reveal Secret Behind Their Success [Full Episode]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TcUw1cghyxA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Jessica Sutta, Former Pussycat Dolls Member: ‘I Was Severely Injured’ by the Shot [FULL EPISODE]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5_Mq7TQVpAI/mqdefault.jpg)
![How California’s Policies Forced Me to Give Up My Farm & Move to Texas: Mollie Engelhart [FULL EP]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UxdmxrC8NGA/maxresdefault.jpg)
