Kashyap Pramod Vinod Patel, President Trump’s selection to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation has just been confirmed.
The final confirmation vote totals were 51-49, with the vote largely falling along party lines. Two Republicans, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted against Patel, joining all 47 Democrats in opposition. The remaining 51 Republican senators, including Mitch McConnell, voted in favor of his confirmation.
Patel, 44, is a former federal prosecutor and was chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller.
Jan. 6 House panel subpoenas Trump allies Bannon, Meadows, 2 more
The House select committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol issued subpoenas to four key allies of former President Donald Trump Thursday, with the committee’s chairman instructing them to sit for depositions next month.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) announced that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former chief strategist Steve Bannon, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Dan Scavino and former Pentagon official Kash Patel had been subpoenaed because they all were working in or had communicated with the White House either in the days leading up to the riot or on the day itself.
In letters to all four men, Thompson said that the committee is investigating “the facts, circumstances, and causes” of the riot, which led to the deaths of five people.
In a letter to Meadows, Thompson cited reports that the then-chief of staff “engaged in multiple elements of the planning and preparation of efforts to contest the presidential election and delay the counting of electoral votes.
Several allies of former President Donald Trump have been subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the deadly Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
“In addition,” Thompson’s letter goes on, ” … while you were the President’s Chief of Staff, you directly communicated with the highest officials at the Department of Justice requesting investigations into election fraud matters in several states” and “contacted several state officials to ensure to encourage investigation of allegations of voter fraud, even after such allegations had been dismissed by state and federal courts, and after the Electoral College had met and voted”.
The chairman’s letter to Bannon, who was fired from his White House post by Trump in August 2017, notes his presence at the Willard Hotel in Washington the night before the riot “during an effort to persuade Members of Congress to block the certification of the election”. Thompson also mentions that Bannon was quoted that same day as saying, “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow [Jan. 6].”
The letter to Scavino, best known for operating Trump’s infamous Twitter account, alleges that he was “tweeting messages from the White House on January 6” and promoted the “Stop the Steal” rally which precipitated the riot.
Mark Meadows — Trump’s chief of staff at the time of the riot — has been subpoenaed.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon was subpoenaed and reportedly claimed that “all hell is going to break loose” prior to the riot.
Patel, a former aide to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is asked to shed light on how Pentagon officials prepared for and responded to the events of Jan. 6.
The letters instruct all four to turn over requested documents to the committee by Oct. 7. Bannon and Patel have been told to sit for depositions Oct. 14, with Meadows and Scavino scheduled to be interviewed the following day.
The subpoenas are a significant escalation for the panel, which plans to launch the interview phase of the investigation after sorting through thousands of pages of documents requested from federal agencies and social media companies.
Last month, the committee issued a sweeping request for the records from the National Archives and Records Administration and several other agencies, including phone records from members of Congress.
The panel also asked for documents and communications from inside the White House on Jan. 6 that pertain to several key figures in the Trump administration, including Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro, Kayleigh McEnany, Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Melania Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Michael Flynn and Rudy Giuliani.
Former Trump aide Dan Scavino was operating the president’s social media at the time of the riot.
In a statement late Thursday, Trump slammed the panel as an “‘Unselect Committee’ of highly partisan politicians, a similar group that perpetrated the now proven lie of Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Impeachment Hoax #1, Impeachment Hoax #2, and many other Scams” that had issued “Harassment Subpoenas.”
“We will fight the Subpoenas on Executive Privilege and other grounds, for the good of our Country,” the former president vowed, “while we wait to find out whether or not Subpoenas will be sent out to Antifa and BLM for the death and destruction they have caused in tearing apart our Democrat-run cities throughout America.”
Comment/Opinion: Bring in the Clowns ! As they denounce the recent release of surveillance footage…..
The Feds Are Forced to Release January 6th Surveillance Footage and Narratives Crumble
Why has the federal government been trying so hard to keep surveillance footage of January 6th under wraps? We may have an answer to that question if a set of newly released videos are any indication.
A judge ordered the videos be released against the wishes of the government prosecutors who claimed doing so would undermine national security. Of course, that makes no sense, and what’s on the videos runs counter to the chosen narrative.
In the investigation into the Crossfire Hurricane scandal, what powers does Special Counsel John Durham have that the inspector general did not? What might come out of Durham’s investigation—which is still ongoing?
If Kash Patel were special counsel, what would he do?
And what declassified materials have still not been released?
Jan Jekielek: Hello everyone, welcome to this week’s episode of Kash’s Corner. Kash, we have something that’s very much up your alley to talk about this week. I know both of us read this, what Glenn Greenwald calls a mega-viral thread. And indeed, it was mega-viral thread done by Daryl Cooper.
It explores how the Russia collusion hoax or operation essentially changed the perception of MAGA voters, or perhaps of a lot of conservatives in America on a whole set of institutions that are part of the U.S. government.
One of the things that Darryl observes is that people were following all the information that was coming out of the corporate media about Russia collusion. These are people that would have eagerly supported any sort of prosecution that might have happened at the time.
But because of the work that you and Congressman Nunes did at the House Intelligence Committee, and the IG [Inspector General] Report that came out subsequently, they increasingly realized that the system really wasn’t working, and in the process they became incredibly disillusioned.
This is something that I’ve heard from many people that I know who were MAGA voters over the past few years. Let’s talk a little bit about Durham. Because Durham, to this day is acting as special counsel looking into the origins of this whole Russia collusion investigation.
Today, what we’re going to ask you to give us some insight into what he might be doing, because a lot of people might not even know that he’s even on the job right now.
Kash Patel: Jan, it’s great to be back and I’m looking forward to another exciting episode with you. And just as a simple reminder to our fan base, we’re going to give a very special shout out to an inspirational fan of Kash’s Corner at the end of the show.
Backing it up a little bit, I would say the American people, the majority have felt that accountability is something that should be applied equally to those in government, as it is to those outside of government, when they break the law.
Now, it’s been proven beyond any doubt, as you said, that the Russiagate narrative, the Russia collusion narrative was a total fraud— a fraud upon a federal court, on federal judges, on the attorney general, on the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and most importantly, on the American people. That is why there’s such energy and drive to understand why accountability is lacking.
Now with John Durham, you have to remember, there’s John Durham, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, with almost 10 years in that role. Bill Barr, in the spring of 2019, brought him in, while he was the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, to look at all of the things related to the Russiagate hoax that we had uncovered on the House Intelligence Committee with Chairman Nunes and that were subsequently validated by the IG’s independent report.
So Darryl was going for a year plus on that matter. Then towards the end of the Trump administration, Bill Barr appointed John Durham to another roll, special counsel.
Mr. Jekielek: Now, let me stop you for a second. So one thing about the IG report, and this was paraded a lot in the corporate media, the IG report didn’t find there was an issue with the predication, or the origins of the whole Russia collusion operation.
Mr. Patel: Let’s just remind everyone of the limited powers of an inspector general. One, they do not have subpoena power. And only people employed in government at the time of the inspector general’s report are required to sit down with them and answer questions if they want to.
They have no authority outside of that, they do not have a grand jury power, and they do not have subpoena power. So a lot of the individuals in question, the Comeys, the McCabes, the Strzoks, the Lisa Pages, they were all fired or resigned or retired early as a result of our HPSCI, [United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] House Intelligence Report.
We were able to show the American people the ways in which they abused their authority. So an inspector general’s report is limited. But I would say this, and I know most of the media wanted to ignore this, he found 17 errors in the four federal warrant applications against the Trump campaign.
Any one of which, he said, was sufficient to overturn each individual warrant. And that was the Inspector General. And two warrants eventually were entirely reversed by the Department of Justice.
So that is a significant finding by the inspector general. But if you want to know what actually happened, you need to have criminal investigative powers, which the IG does not have, but a John Durham would.
Mr. Jekielek: So John Durham is still around as special counsel now. Actually he’s left his role as a U.S. Attorney for Connecticut. But we really haven’t heard anything from him.
Mr. Patel: So a quick reminder on special counsels. He’s in place and the special counsel regulations outlined by the attorney general at the time of the appointment say what John Durham is allowed to investigate.
Essentially, he’s allowed to investigate the entire origins of the Russia collusion narrative, and all the individuals involved. He has all the authority that a Department of Justice prosecutor has— grand jury, petit jury, subpoenas, national security letters, and the like.
So it’s a tremendous amount of power, and he has the investigative capability of FBI agents, federal law enforcement and local law enforcement to help him.
He’s still in place because the special counsel’s role has not ended. It can only end when he finishes his submission to the attorney general as to recommend charges, and/or submit a written report for the public to read once the attorney general has signed off on that report as well.
So neither of those things have happened. Obviously, John Durham has not been removed as special counsel. He’s still there. I don’t know what he’s doing. But I know what I would do.
Grand Jury Indicts D.C. Attorney with Making False Statements to the FBI in 2016 Regarding Alleged Communications Between Trump Organization and Russian Bank
Special Counsel John Durham today announced that a federal grand jury returned an indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charging Michael A. Sussmann, 57, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, with making a false statement to the FBI on Sept. 19, 2016. The charge in the indictment stems from a set of allegations brought by Sussmann to the FBI related to an alleged secret channel of communications between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.
Sussmann is expected to make his initial appearance in the D.C. federal court as soon as tomorrow. The court will schedule the appearance.
As alleged in the indictment, on Sept. 19, 2016, Sussman, a lawyer at a large international law firm, met with the FBI General Counsel at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Sussmann had requested the meeting to provide the General Counsel with certain data files and “white papers” that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank. Sussmann, who had previously represented the Democratic National Committee in connection with a cyber hack, falsely stated to the General Counsel that he was not bringing these allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. This false representation led the General Counsel to understand that Sussmann was providing information as a good citizen rather than a paid advocate or political operative. In fact, Sussmann assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two clients, including a U.S. technology executive and the Clinton Presidential Campaign.
The House Intelligence Committee staff investigator who led the Russia inquiry that exposed malfeasance at the FBI and the DOJ related to the surveillance of Trump 2016 campaign associates told the Epoch Times on March 15 that there would be no closure until the responsible officials are indicted and prosecuted.
“For me, closure is synonymous with accountability,” Kash Patel, who led the House Russia inquiry in 2017 and 2018 before moving on to senior roles at the White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Defense.
“So we either have that accountability in the form of the only place that can give it, which is a Department of Justice indictment, or we don’t. And I do think it’s that binary.”
Special counsel John Durham is reportedly continuing a criminal inquiry into the origins of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Durham has handed down one indictment to date, which has resulted in the conviction of former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith. Patel believes that falls far short of the scope of wrongdoing he and his colleagues uncovered.
“We got 14 individuals fired, resigned early or retired early, as a result of our investigation on House Intel, because of the malfeasance we showed they committed,” he continued. “So there’s some measure of accountability from a congressional standpoint, because that’s what congressional oversight is supposed to do. But for the American public, and, quite frankly, me, there’s no accountability unless you can exact the same punishments over those that committed this conduct internally as they do to others externally.”
Patel’s work on the House Intelligence Committee culminated in the release of the report on Russian active measures in March 2018. Two months prior to the report’s release, the committee Republicans voted to release the so-called Nunes memo, which summarized the findings about the FBI’s use of the infamous Steele dossier to secure warrants to surveil a former Trump campaign adviser.
Patel’s team discovered that the Clinton 2016 presidential campaign ultimately paid for the dossier and that the FBI failed to disclose that fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The bureau also failed to disclose the overt bias of the dossier’s author, former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, who was, according to an associate, “desperate” that then-candidate Trump not be elected president.
Considering the amount of money that changed hands and the number of players involved, including top officials at the FBI and DOJ, Patel finds it hard to believe that Clinesmith, the convicted FBI attorney, was a lone wolf.
“For someone who worked at DOJ, part of the reason I left was the lack of internal accountability for when prosecutors breach the public trust that they’ve been bestowed. The most common example is a Brady violation—exculpatory evidence,” Patel said.
“We found that time and again in the Russiagate investigation that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court was not told of exculpatory evidence as it related to multiple individuals involved in that FISA package,” Patel said, referring to the FISA warrants secured against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. “It’s unfortunate and I hope there’s more, but I don’t know.”
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told Congress last year that he would not have signed the FISA applications on Carter Page if he knew what he knows now. The Department of Justice Office Inspector General found 17 significant errors and omissions in the Page FISA applications, implicating every official involved in the process.
The Crossfire Hurricane investigation evolved into the special counsel probe headed by Robert Mueller, who after 22 months found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Patel arrived at the same conclusion long before Mueller. Every one of the nearly 60 witnesses his team interviewed said they had no evidence of collusion, conspiracy, or coordination.
Patel said he has a number of people in mind, both in the private and public sectors, who he would bring charges against if he were in the Department of Justice. Whether anyone faces charges is ultimately up to Durham, he said.
Comment:One of the most insightful interviews I have watched related to RussiaGate and Kash Patel does an excellent job of laying it out in a clear and concise manner. That is not to say, that more needs to be released to the American public. Never-the-less, very informative.
