top of page
Search

The DC Handshake Coverup and the Hunter Biden Scandal

“I believe Hunter Biden will be charged, and soon, but I think they’ll roll it up into what we call this global plea agreement, where he basically gets charged with some Mickey Mouse lower-level offenses, walks into a super light sentence, and then they will cover up the cover-up,” says Kash Patel.

This week on Kash’s Corner, we discuss recent statements by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Attorney General Merrick Garland related to investigations into President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, the end of federal vaccine mandates—with some key exceptions—and the Biden administration’s recent announcement that the United States is sending 1,500 more active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

Interview traier:

 

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Kash Patel: Hey everybody and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. Jan, I know you have a myriad of topics to talk about. Where should we start?

Jan Jekielek: I’m particularly happy to see that this federal vaccine mandate has finally ended, but it has not actually ended for everybody. We’re going to talk about the implications of that. Then we have this 51 Intel letter and also discussion about potential obstruction around the Hunter Biden laptop investigation. Someone’s lying around that, and we don’t know who it is. How do we actually get to the bottom of it? I’d love to know about that. Finally, there’s 1500 active troops heading to the border, and that’s not something I ever thought I’d see, but it might be desperately needed.

Mr. Patel: We’ll start at the top with the end of the COVID mandate requirements. As you said, it’s for the most part ending, at least as it revolves around federal government operations and federal government agencies and departments. How can the Biden administration on the one hand say “Fauci is the most brilliant medical expert we’ve ever had. We must listen to him,” and at the same time, end the COVID mandate across the board, which I agree with. It should end. It should have ended a long time ago. But Fauci is out there on national TV as recently as a week or two ago, saying “There’s going to be yet another outbreak.”

Anthony Fauci: So if we really want to prevent the next pandemic, and there will be one, there will absolutely be an outbreak of another pandemic. It may be next year or it may be in your grandchildren, and your great grandchildren’s lifetime. We don’t know.

Mr. Patel: Again, the theme of this show is—let’s find out who the liar is and what we do with them once we find them. We have talked on this show in the past about instances where Fauci has been caught lying, whether it’s about the mandates, the vaccines, social distancing, what private companies should do, what the government should do, and what kids should do at school.

I find it ironic that now the Biden administration is saying, “COVID is over.” I want it to be over. It is over. It was over a long time ago when it came to all these mandates. But it’s especially curious that they left some exceptions, though that’s not surprising for government work. They seem to always carve out exceptions that most of the time don’t have sound logic.

In this instance, they’ve carved out an exception for the National Institutes of Health [NIH], and said, “We will let them decide.” That’s a little weird if they’re saying it’s over. Then, on the other hand, they’re also saying the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is a massive operation that takes care of our soldiers, both active duty and after service for life—everyone has driven around America and seen VA hospitals all over the place—we’re going to let them decide whether or not COVID mandates are ending, when the government has already said they’re ending.

That sets up a whole other legal construction that I find problematic. Now, you’re saying if you work at the FBI, there’s no mandate. But if you’re NIH or you care for soldiers at the VA and those agencies and departments institute a mandate, then you have to give up your job. But if you just worked at the other agency, you’d be fine. That doesn’t seem to be, in my opinion, a legal hurdle that they can surmount.

Mr. Jekielek: The other question I have is does that mean that another agency could just decide, “Actually, we want to have a COVID vaccine mandate.”

Mr. Patel: That’s the thing. They could go to court.

Mr. Jekielek: Hypothetically.

Mr. Patel: Right. Hypothetically. They could go to court and be like, “Wait a second. The Biden administration carved out an exception for them. What about us? I want an exception.” They could sue. It almost creates more issues that are going to go to court. I can’t imagine an employee at some of these agencies and departments not raising the legal issue.

As you pointed out, what about a separate agency that is saying, “No, we want the mandates. The government acted improperly. The mandate should be across the board.” Those questions can only be answered in court, so we’ll see how it goes.

Mr. Jekielek: What about people who were let go? I had someone on American Thought Leaders just the other day who was given a command in the Marines. Within days of that, he had to decide to leave the Marines, because they wouldn’t give him the religious exemption for the vaccine mandates. What happens to people like that?

Mr. Patel: That’s where I go first, as the former chief of staff of the Department of Defense. Thousands of soldiers had to make that decision, and thousands did make the decision to abide by their religious beliefs or affirmations and not take the vaccine mandate, and they were terminated.

The Air Force particularly sticks out on that. You can’t rewind the clock. What are you going to do? You should give them their careers back, put them back in the rank and file system to where their promotion should have been, and give them back pay. None of this stuff has been sorted out.

Maybe I’m biased, but I talk about the military first before anything else. In my opinion, we treated them unlawfully, and forced them to choose between faith and service, improperly and unlawfully. Many people were terminated, and lives were ruined as a result.

You can’t just flip the switch and say, “Okay, everybody’s back in the club now. We’ll just put you back at the stations you were at. We’ll move your families again. We’ll never do this to you again until the next outbreak occurs, and then we’ll mandate it all over again.” It’s just an ugly end to an ugly situation that was politicized to the max for narrative gain, and that didn’t serve the actual needs of the American population.

Mr. Jekielek: There is this theme of where are the lies coming from? I’m producing a documentary on vaccine injury as we’re speaking. It’s called, “The Unseen Crisis.” I was reflecting on the fact that it certainly appears that Anthony Fauci lied about there being no transmission.

There are other clips that have been up, looking at former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell. His testimony doesn’t seem to comport with what Secretary Blinker’s response was. How do we deal with questions like that?

Mr. Patel: Unfortunately, it’s a systemic problem, not a political problem. It’s not a Democrat or Republican problem. But it’s a problem. In large part, it stems from the Capitol building back there and the people who go in there and testify. We’ll get to the 51 Intel letter and the Lincoln situation in a second. Government officials, especially cabinet secretaries who run agencies and departments that actually run our government are never supposed to lie under oath, or to the public for that matter.

That’s why it’s a federal offense. That’s why it’s a felony. Too often we’ve been plagued with cabinet level officials or senior secretaries that lie. We’ve pointed out on the show numerous occasions where James Comey, former director of the FBI lied, where Chris Wray, the current director of the FBI, lied, and where Rod Rosenstein, then acting Deputy Attorney General of the DOJ lied.

Those are all Republican appointees. I don’t want it to be as if we’re just attacking Democrats. The whole point of that statute having been passed by Congress is to make sure people don’t lie. When they do, they should go to jail. The problem we’ve had, and a lot of the frustration that our audience expresses week in and week out is, “Where’s the accountability? Everyone knows they lied.” This is not like a Kash’s Corner, Epoch Times thing.

These are proven facts that they went in and lied under oath, whether it was Chris Wray on retribution to whistleblowers, whether it was James Comey and the bogus FISA warrant that he wrote up and signed for Donald Trump, and whether it was Rod Rosenstein and the fact that he lied about who he was surveilling on Devin Nunes’s team while they were investigating his own corruption. Not to mention the fact that Rod Rosenstein lied by signing the ultimate FISA warrant that was rescinded by the FISA court itself, because it was improperly done.

That’s governmentspeak for “You lied to us, you the FBI, DOJ lied to us. You put your signatures on it. We’re pulling the warrant back and saying it’s canceled.” Okay, that’s an internal step of accountability. But where is the outward public-facing step? Nothing has happened to any of those folks.

It was one of the reasons I took on that mission. I didn’t expect to encounter that level of depravity at the top. But then, you expect action from your government. Paul Ryan decided to take none as a speaker of the house back then. Again, a Republican majority and a Republican Speaker of the House failed to hold those guys and gals accountable for lying to Congress under oath.

Fast forward to today, and we’ll remind our audience, we covered the Morell situation in depth in last week’s episode. If you missed that, go check that out. What has happened during the week since, Tony Blinken, the current Secretary of State, has come out and made a statement in a public interview.

Tony Blinken: With regard to that letter, it wasn’t my idea, didn’t ask for it, didn’t solicit it. And I think the testimony that the former deputy director of the CIA, Mike Morell, put forward confirms that.

Mr. Patel: His response was like this Washington DC handshake, hand wash, hand rinsing operation. He basically said, “What Mike Morell said, exonerates me.” It makes no sense. Both you and Mike Morell cannot both be telling the truth, because you are saying diametrically opposite things.

Mike Morell is saying “You, Tony Blinken, while senior campaign advisor to then candidate Biden in 2020-ish called me and said, ‘We need a counter-narrative to the New York Post reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop.'” The solution was that Mike Morell and 51 other people penned the Intel letter that we talked about.

Tony Blinken says, “I never talked to Mike Morell about it, and that what Mike Morell said exonerates him.” It’s not logically possible. Let’s give Blinken the benefit of the doubt and say he didn’t lie. Okay, let’s figure out who did. We have sworn testimony locked in place from Mike Morell.

Now, Tony Blinken must come in and swear under oath to a line of questioning that was brilliantly laid out in the letter penned by Senators Johnson and Grassley on the Senate side. If he’s correct, then everything Mike Morell said under oath is a lie, and Mike Morell has to be prosecuted. It just doesn’t seem like with the information we have right now that this is the case.

I’ve dubbed this 51 Intel letter operation as Steele Dossier 2.0. In my mind it is similar to how the Steele Dossier was dumped into the FISA warrant. If you look at it from that perspective, you have Tony Blinken receiving a letter from 51 Intelligence Officers; Secretary of Defense, CIA director, NSA director, Deputies Chiefs, and Mike Morell. Joe Biden then takes that letter and holds it up at a presidential debate and says, “Look, anything anyone says about Hunter Biden’s laptop is false. It’s Russian disinformation. Here’s the letter.”

They manufactured information like they did with the Steele Dossier. The only difference was in the Steele Dossier, they gave it to both the FBI and the media. They just gave it to the media and the candidate used it. They knew it was false. Because now, we have sworn testimony that shows Mike Morell, the architect of the letter, saying that he did it for political reasons so that Joe Biden would win and Donald Trump would lose. They can’t both be telling the truth.

As a former government official and a guy who’s investigated criminals, cops, FBI agents, the DOJ, and the FBI, there can’t be a two-tier system of justice. Circling back to the Senator Grassley and Johnson letter, which we’ll put up for our audience, we know that especially with Senator Grassley’s work with whistleblowers, he’s very methodical and not in a rush to go to the media, and he’s definitely not in a rush to send out a letter like that. But when you reach a certain point, which I think we’ve passed, you have to now go after them.

The problem is, as we’ve highlighted in the past, they’re in the Senate, and the Republicans don’t have the gavels. They can send a letter that Tony Blinken doesn’t have to respond to, and nothing will happen. What should happen in the House of Representatives is that the Judiciary Committee, the Weaponization Committee, the Intel Committee Oversight Committee, a number of committees should subpoena Tony Blinken, and subpoena all the emails. Remember, Tony Blinken, at the time that he was in communication with Mike Morell about the 51 Intel letter, wasn’t a government official.

We’re not going after Tony Blinken, Secretary of State. We’re going after Tony Blinken and investigating him as a private American citizen. Get his emails, and get his wife’s emails. If he did nothing wrong, then those emails won’t exist. This is the only way to actually get accountability. We know having covered this Justice department and the FBI, that they are never going to prosecute anyone at a senior level in the Biden administration.

They’re not going to, just like they failed to prosecute anyone at a senior level position in the Trump administration. Because the DOJ has become completely morally bankrupt when it comes to policing its own, that is, its own government employees at senior level positions. It’s left to Congress and it’s up to Congress to get the truth out to the American people in the form of subpoenas.

You get the emails, you get the text messages, you get the call records, the money records of who paid for what, and then, talk to the people that signed the letter. That’s the big component to this that no one has done in Congress yet. Why aren’t there 51 subpoenas from the House of Representative side? Have everybody that signed that letter come in and testify under oath. There’s only 50 left now. Mike Morell already came in. Call in the other 50 people and ask them what happened.

Why did you sign it? Did you know it was false? If you knew it was false, why did you sign it anyway? Are they going to say the same thing that Morell said, “To rig a presidential election.” Were they working for the Biden campaign? Did they have contact with Tony Blinken or his wife or other senior level officials in the Biden campaign?

These are all answers that we are owed, and the only way we’re going to get it is through Congress. The next step that Congress must take on the 51 Intel officials, if it plays out the way we have seen the facts roll out here, they should be permanently stripped of their security clearances. These 51 intelligence officers have left the government. They have high-flying, big paying jobs because of their prior positions, and because they have a top secret SCI active security clearance. They cannot be allowed to put out disinformation knowingly to rig election cycles and then profit from that.

Technically, taking away someone’s security clearance is a job for the ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] through their coordinate agencies and departments or the White House. But we know that this ODNI and White House aren’t going to do anything. People always ask me, “Well, how do you do that?” You zero out the funding for the security clearances that are hosted for these 51 intelligence officers. It’s a specific line of funding. The government still has to host that. They have to pay to have that done. If you take away the money, then you take away their clearance.

Mr. Jekielek: What about this IRS whistleblower that came to Grassley?

Mr. Patel: Yes. The theme of the episode is, “Who’s lying, and once we catch you, what happens? Is there going to be any accountability?” Now, we have Merrick Garland, the number one law enforcement officer in the country, our attorney general. He has said in the past that the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, whether it’s the IRS component of it, the firearms component of it, the fraud component, or any other crime on there is being run by the U.S. attorney in Delaware.

He reminds us that it’s a Trump appointee. I’m not sure that matters. He has said in the past, “There will be no interference.” That’s good. That’s what we want. We don’t want any political interference of any kind. Here’s the problem. This IRS whistleblower comes forward and we don’t have all the information, because he’s doing it under the Whistleblower Protection Act, or at least trying to divulge information in that fashion.

He’s gone to multiple inspector generals, including the DOJ and IRS and his lawyers trying to get more of what he has over there. But essentially, what this IRS whistleblower per Grassley has said is there has been political obstruction in the investigation into Hunter Biden, at least as it relates to the IRS tax fraud component of that criminal investigation.

Again, is he lying? By all accounts, no one has been able to point out that the IRS whistleblower is a political figure or active in the GOP or Democratic side or donating a lot of money. He just seems to be a government career guy.

But just today, Merrick Garland has doubled down. Right before we were filming Merrick Garland was asked at the Justice Department about the Hunter Biden investigation, with a reference alluding to this IRS whistleblower. He said, “There has been none and there will be no obstruction of the Hunter Biden investigation.”

Now, we have a problem. Again, who’s lying? The IRS whistleblower is willing to come forward, wants to divulge this information, and wants to submit to under oath testimony in Congress. Good. We need that. That has to happen. Now. We have to subpoena Merrick Garland and put him under oath.

Mr. Jekielek: Is it possible that he just doesn’t know? We have a very large set of departments. You’re absolutely right, he’s on record talking about that today. But this might be happening independently of anything Merrick Garland is doing.

Mr. Patel: It’s possible. Of course, the Attorney General is not supposed to know about the inner workings of every criminal investigation that’s being undertaken by his department across the country and around the world. Of course not. He probably shouldn’t even know about a fraction of them. His job is not the everyday line prosecution matters. His job is macro level, but this isn’t an everyday case.

This is the son of the sitting president, and he has repeatedly made public statements on it. He has taken more than just an interest in this case, and the public has an overwhelming interest in this case. When he finally testifies, if he says, “I didn’t know that that was going on,” I don’t believe that.

But he’ll probably get away with saying that under oath. Because how are you going to prove otherwise unless this whistleblower somehow comes forward and says, “I was in a room with Merrick Garland,” or “Here’s an email from Merrick Garland to the office of the Attorney General,” or something like that.

It would be difficult to prove. What I’m more concerned with is the constant DC laundering of the truth and the DC handshake. If you go back to Tony Blinken, he comes out and says, “Mike Morell exonerated me.” That doesn’t make any sense. But the media picks up on it and gives him the benefit of the doubt and just says, “Okay, Tony Blinken is not lying. Next.” Merrick Garland comes in twice and says, “This investigation is free from political obstruction of any kind.”

Now, you have the whistleblower. He doubles down and makes the statement again. Why can’t these folks just say, “We are going to submit to an investigation. Congress you don’t even have to subpoena us. We’re going to come. We owe you answers. We owe you documents. You are our constitutional oversight, and you report to the American people. Here is all the information.”

At least the public knows what happened. But they care so much about what’s going on, that they do it to themselves. With the government, the coverup is worse than what actually happened underneath. Whether it is Russiagate, Jan 6th, Ukraine, or impeachment, the coverup constantly trips people up. Because in my opinion, they don’t want to tell the truth. They don’t tell the truth. They get caught. Then, they make these blanket statements to say they’re somehow above board.

Tragically, the media carries that water for them given their political orientation. It’s going to be tough to get the answers to some of these questions, but they are the only guys and gals behind us that can do it. We’ve outlined it all before. On the show, we’ll keep outlining where we think they should send subpoenas.

But the simple matter remains. An IRS investigation is based on numbers, money, and bank documents. Money doesn’t lie. It’s pretty simple. Either he got income and paid his taxes or he didn’t. It’s not like, “I saw him in the bank with the gun, but it might have been the other guy who pulled the trigger. I couldn’t tell, they had ski masks on.”

Hunter Biden has already admitted to receiving all this income. He already admitted to not paying the taxes on it. Then, he had some third party come in and pay the tax bill. What are we waiting for?

It begs the question, “Why is this criminal investigation taking so long if he has admitted to it? Here’s the kicker Jan, and I don’t think we talked about this before. Hunter Biden’s attorneys went to the Department of Justice a week or two ago and received a high-level audience.That almost never happens.

Having been a defender myself, if I said, “My client wants a meeting with the senior leadership at DOJ, so we can discuss the price of tea in China,” they would have laughed me out of the building. But they got an audience. You don’t go into the Department of Justice representing the president’s son under criminal investigation unless you are trying to resolve the matter.

The prediction I have made is that Hunter Biden will soon be charged. But I think they’ll roll it up into what we call this global plea agreement, where he basically gets charged with some Mickey Mouse lower level offenses, and walks into a super light sentence, and then, they will cover up the coverup.

Merrick Garland and Company will go to the podium and say, “We prosecuted Joe Biden’s son, even though he’s the president of the United States.” They’ll gloss over the fact that any other individual who committed those crimes would’ve been treated differently. That’s what is happening right now.

That’s why that meeting occurred, because the lawyers are smart enough to realize that there’s no way he won’t be charged with anything. We’ll see what Merrick Garland has to say about it. I think he should be subpoenaed.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, and I really do hope this gets resolved. However it plays out, or whatever we learn, I’m open to finding out what the truth is in these situations. Overall, as these types of things keep happening, it undermines Americans’ faith in their system. I find this deeply troubling.

Mr. Patel: That’s the most detrimental consequence of all this. It’s not, “I told you so,” or “Look, we caught the secretary of this lying, or this senior official lying.” That’s a failure of government. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, that is a monumental failure in your oath of office and your duty to the American people each and every time it occurs.

What’s an even bigger failure? Them getting away with it. That is what frustrates the American people even more than the underlying crime itself. They are subjected to a different level of scrutiny and system of justice than anyone else would have been, had they gone across the street here and lied to Congress under oath.

That’s just one example. We’ve talked about all the others on how disparate people have been treated across different instances of criminal conduct, be it the Molotov cocktail, NYPD, flamethrowers in New York City, vs. the Jan 6 folks, the Minnesota rioters vs. the folks in Portland, Oregon, who literally burned a federal courthouse, and just how differently the Justice Department treated all those cases.

That’s why most people are saying crazy things like, “Disband the FBI.” I don’t believe that. It needs monster reforms and headquarters needs to be moved out of Washington DC, and the agents need to be sent to the field to do criminal work. That’s a whole different conversation. But it leads to that conversation that’s dangerous to the republic, which is the overcorrection of the problem by saying, “Just get rid of everyone. We don’t need this agency or that agency at all.”

I’m the first one to say there’s massive abuse. But it needs reform and it has to be thought out in a methodical fashion. The problem is, when we say stuff like that, we lose credibility in the public eye. Maybe rightfully so, because they say, “Look, you keep relying on this government that keeps lying to us and applying the law selectively. I’m sorry, I can’t believe what you’re saying anymore.”

That’s what I mean when I say it’s so destructive. It’s destructive from both ends. Both the government officials and the American public are on this crash course to slam into each other. It’s probably going to happen soon. I don’t know what the outcome of that will be unless we have actual accountability from one of the only places we have left to get it, so we can actually show the American public, “This is what happened. This person lied, this person didn’t. We may not be able to indict him, but now you know and now you know the truth.” That to me is the hardest fight we have.

Mr. Jekielek: It feels like a much needed pressure release valve.

Mr. Patel: The truth would be nice, but I don’t know if it’s coming.

Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump to our final topic. From what I understand, 1500 troops are heading to the border. It seems like they’re actually needed. The reports we get from our reporters at the border are very serious. What do you make of this?

Mr. Patel: Again, who’s lying? Either there is a crisis at the border or there isn’t. It’s one or the other.

Mr. Jekielek: I think it’s very clear there is a massive crisis at the border.

Mr. Patel: You and I have been clear on the fact that we believe there’s a narcotics crisis. There’s an illegal immigration wave crisis, there’s a criminal crisis, and there’s money laundering. There’s tons of Chinese Fentanyl killing Americans, destroying our economy, and bringing down our justice system. But the Biden administration, and I’m sure we can find a clip from either the press secretaries or Biden himself saying in the past, “There is no crisis at the border.” If that were the case, then you as the commander in chief do not dispatch active duty soldiers to the southern border.

Now, they’ve caveated again, going back to this government handshake, government laundering cycle of, “We’re just sending them, because DHS asked us for them. They’re just going to walk around.” Why are you sending active duty soldiers on a deployment cycle to the southern border?

They both can’t be true. On this one, there’s a little more clarity because the documentation is so prolific on the crisis at the southern border, literally weekly. Now, they’re getting ready specifically for the Title 42 to expire, which is that executive authority that President Trump implemented about keeping illegal immigrants at bay during COVID. You’ve seen reporting that there’s this massive caravan set to hit the United States southern border in a week. Are these thousands of people running up to America? Is that fake? Is that not happening?

I have a wry smile on my face and I’m joking about it, but sometimes you have to posit it that way to people who for years have said, “There is no crisis.” It’s another one of those points where you have to take it as a journalist and put it forward and say, “It’s not a Democrat or Republican thing.”

It’s a fact that the White House lied to you for so long about it. And then now, in my opinion, it’s a variation of the lie by them saying, “We’re sending top cover, but not really. We still think everything’s okay. They’re just going to be down there just in case.” Both of those things can’t be true. We’ll see how that plays out. As the former chief of staff at DOD, you never send active duty soldiers anywhere just for the heck of it. It’s not what we train our men and women for.

Mr. Jekielek: Within the country, right?

Mr. Patel: Right.

Mr. Jekielek: Yes.

Mr. Patel: Whether it’s within the country or overseas, you’re not just like, “Yes, just go hang out there for six months and maybe something will happen.” That’s not the purpose of the United States Department of Defense. People might be saying, “Oh, it’s the National Guard.” No, this isn’t the National Guard. That’s a whole different thing. We’ve talked about it extensively in the past. The National Guard is utilized for a very different purpose when called upon.

This is active duty military. Some might be in the reserves or majority might come from the reserves, but they’re still active duty. They’re the United States military being deployed by the commander in chief exclusively to the southern border. That is a direct action-oriented maneuver of the Department of Defense pursuant to Joe Biden’s instruction.

Mr. Jekielek: As I said at the beginning, it seems like a good idea at this point.

Mr. Patel: I’m not arguing against it. We need more DHS down there, and we need more FBI down there. We need way more border patrol. We need more money, and a whole host of things that need to happen down at the southern border. We’ve talked about that in the past. We’re addressing it in the media, rather than addressing the problem.

That seems to be another theme, as I do a quick rewind of the show here. Whether it’s Blinken or Garland or Biden, they seem to make these statements or maneuvers in the media to address the matter in the media, and it seems to be the improper decision at every turn. We’ll see how it all shakes out.

Mr. Jekielek: Kash, it’s time for our shout out.

Mr. Patel: Indeed, Jan. As we always do, we’ll stay on top of this. It is time for our shout out this week. The shout out goes to Chad Demiano. Thanks so much for your nice note on our comments board. Yes, I am more articulate than Jan. No, I’m just kidding. Jan and I are very humbled by all the commentary that everyone provides. It’s very nice to know that we have such a great audience who is so engaged at the detail level. It’s what makes us keep putting out the show week after week. So, we appreciate everybody’s comments. We appreciate everybody that participates on the live chat during the show. We will see you next week on Kash’s Corner.

This interview was edited for clarity and brevity.


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


-

PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD:


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



-

Follow American Thought Leaders on social media:


8 views0 comments
Post: Blog2_Post

HOT PRODUCTS

EpochTV Programs

Crossroads with Joshua Philipp

Uploads from Crossroads with JOSHUA PHILIPP
Watch Now

American Thought Leaders

Uploads from American Thought Leaders - The Epoch Times
Watch Now

Facts Matter Roman Balmakov

Latest Videos
Watch Now

EpochTV LIVE

EpochTV Live
Watch Now
bottom of page