Kash Patel: Here’s How Jim Jordan Can Set a Trap to Expose Collusion Between Big Tech and Intelligence Agencies

Recently, the New York Times published a lengthy piece claiming John Durham’s investigation was flawed and “failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.” Subsequently, a number of congressmen have called for Durham and Bill Barr to be investigated. What’s really going on?

“They do these preemptive strikes when they know something is about to happen,” says Kash Patel.

We also discuss House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) investigation into the federal government’s collusion with big tech to suppress free speech. Jordan recently subpoenaed the CEOs of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft. Patel says Jordan should also send subpoenas in the other direction—to the FBI and DOJ—for all communications, contracts, and agreements with the tech giants.

“Once you run those two subpoenas on a parallel track, Jan, then you can get some real documentation and answers for the American people because someone is going to get caught lying,” Patel says.

And finally, we take a look at the Chinese spy balloon, the other downed aerial objects, and the train filled with toxic chemicals in Ohio that recently derailed. Are these events connected?

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Kash Patel:

Hey, everybody, and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. We have a jam-packed episode, and if you can believe it, Jan, this is the last episode of season six. I cannot believe we have been going so strong for so long. It’s been a great ride, and I can’t wait for next season. But what are we going to talk about today to close it off?

Jan Jekielek:

It is a jam-packed episode, and we’re going to have to talk about Russiagate again, because The New York Times came out with this preposterous whitewash of all the work that has been done by yourself and Devin Nunes to expose what happened with Russiagate. Then, we have the Columbia Journalism Review coming back and basically doing something that was a direct response to this whitewash in The New York Times. I didn’t expect it. There’s some pretty solid reporting there. I know you want to comment on this.

We’ve got James Clapper coming in and basically criticizing Politico for its headline back in the Hunter Biden laptop days when this all came out. Kind of shocking, that’s another thing I wasn’t expecting. It wasn’t on my bingo card, as people would say. I also think we need to talk about the further adventures of the Chinese spy balloon. Let’s just touch on this New York Times piece. Basically, they’re saying that Durham came up with nothing.

Mr. Patel:

Durham did not find nothing. What Durham found was the very core of corruption at the intersection of the FBI, and the deep state, and the media. Which is why the media is flexing so hard right now to try to knock him out. Remember Jan, they do these preemptive strikes when they know something is about to happen.

We’ve covered it before, whether it’s January 6th, or whether it’s Russiagate, The New York Times and The Washington Post always produce anonymous sourcing to say it’s a nothingburger. Remember when Hillary Clinton said the Steele dossier was a nothingburger, and that was produced into the media, and then relayed by every single major outlet? That’s what’s going on today. When reporting on Russiagate or any other scandal, we always appreciate it when an outlet that normally didn’t cover it accurately, or didn’t cover it at all, finally comes around.

That’s what this review journal has done. They didn’t reach out to Devin Nunes and myself for their extensive deep dive into how Russiagate unfolded. But putting that aside, I do appreciate the angle they’ve taken vis-a-vis the New York Times and Washington Post.

Specifically, Jan, what they’ve done is to basically debunk, line by line and subject by subject, two of the old school institutions in journalism that received Pulitzer Prizes for their fake reporting on Russiagate. They called them out for the use of anonymous sources, but specifically, they called them out for the use of leaks from the FBI to craft fictional narratives, so that a political agenda could be achieved by the mainstream media.

Jan, this is the biggest point people are failing to make. There is no Russiagate without the mainstream media. It just doesn’t happen. As we now know from our Russiagate investigation, the mainstream media’s reporting was used to buttress the Steele dossier and the FISA warrant application through the circular reporting process.

What that means is the likes of David Corn and Yahoo News write their bogus journalism, and submit it back to the FBI, and the FBI lies, and say, “Oh. Look. Not only did we find that Donald Trump and his cronies are Russian assets, but look at the media. They’re reporting it.” They continuously reported, based on whatever Adam Schiff, and Swalwell and company were telling them, that Donald Trump was a Russian asset, that he had rigged the election and not Hillary Clinton, and that the Republicans had funneled money into these illegal activities, not the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

It’s about time they’ve been called out on their BS. It’s not that they haven’t learned their lesson, it’s just that they refuse to learn their lesson, because once they do that, then there can be no more deep state, or administrative state, or whatever you want to call it. As long as Donald Trump is in the media, or in the mainstream, or running for president, that partnership will never end.

Mr. Jekielek:

From what I’ve seen, there’s even been some congressional members who have called for oversight hearings, based on this New York Times reporting that came out, if you can imagine.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. If they’re calling for congressional oversight, they might want to be careful what they asked for. I would love to see John Durham front and center, in front of a congressional inquiry, taking on both Democrats and Republicans. Because look, I’ve known the man for a long time, and I don’t know what his politics are. I’ve never known him to be political in his prosecutions, and everything he has produced has been meticulously fact-based.

Whether or not he won convictions against Sussmann and Danchenko is one thing, but the foundation of those prosecutions, as we’ve covered on this show, were buttressed by calling out the FBI by name, agents like Hyde, and Strzok and company, and other people that we didn’t know about Charles Dolan, and how he was a source for the FBI, and how he assisted not just Stefan Halper and others, but how the mainstream media, The New York Times, and Washington Post, and others came to their aid during this investigation to allow for the DOJ to improperly conduct an investigation into the Trump campaign. I, for one, Jan, would love that.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s switch gears a little bit. Let’s talk about James Clapper basically criticizing Politico for taking out of context this letter that he and these 51 former intelligence officials signed, saying that the Hunter Biden laptop had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation. That’s me paraphrasing the term.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. Let’s just rewind the tape a little bit because it’s been so many years since this reporting came out. Let’s remind our audience who and what was going on. Politico had an author, a supposed journalist, and that’s being very kind, called Natasha Bertrand. She writes an article, based on a letter that 51 former intelligence officials signed.

Jan, it’s worth noting who signed this thing; Leon Panetta, the former Secretary of Defense, Michael Hayden the former Director of the NSA and the former Director of the CIA, Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, and a slew of other former cabinet secretaries and deputy cabinet secretaries in intelligence and national security roles. 51 people got together, put their reputations on the line, wrote this letter, and signed it. Then, Natasha Bertrand at Politico used this letter to weaponize the investigation into Hunter Biden.

The only thing that they could come up with was, “How do we knock it out in the mainstream media?” The only way to do that was to essentially call it fake news, and label it a Russian conspiracy, just like they did with the whole Donald Trump scheme from the 2015-16 campaign. They borrowed that sort of mindset and operational approach, and applied it to a different subject, the Hunter Biden laptop, right before an election.

That’s the backdrop, Jan. This article comes out, and if you don’t follow it like you and I do, most Americans don’t read the newspaper and watch TV every day, they might pop in once a week. You would see a letter like that, and you’d be like, “Wow! 51 former intelligence officials?” I got to take their word for it. These guys have been at it, collectively, for literally 500 years, so they might know what they’re talking about. But we knew better back then, and we fought the letter back then.

What’s ironic now, of course, as we talked about at the beginning of the episode, is this thing has come full circle. The New York Times and The Washington Post have been called out by the Columbia Journalism Review. The Politico article is actually being called out upon by the very signatories of that letter. The defense, now, from the likes of James Clapper, and Brennan, and Leon Panetta and company is, “Oh. Politico, who we submitted the letter to, to write this story back then, that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, Politico and Natasha Bertrand got it wrong.”

I’m trying not to laugh really hard here. Remember, James Clapper lied under oath to Congress about the Russiagate scandal and the intelligence that he knew about, and when he knew it. And now, he pens this bogus letter with his cronies, and now he’s caught lying yet again.

What does he do? He doubles down, like government gangsters always do when they’re caught lying, they lie about lying. Now, they’re blaming their partners in the mainstream media who they say actually got it wrong. None of these people corrected the so-called misconception of the headline for the last two years. But now that their credibility has been thoroughly destroyed, and that reporting has been entirely debunked, they’re coming forward and blaming the very media they were in bed with. No. I don’t give them a hall pass at all, Jan.

Mr. Jekielek:

Kash, is it just business as usual for these 51 officials that signed this letter in the first place?

Mr. Patel:

Part of the problem, Jan, is these folks leave the government with their golden parachutes going into the defense industrial complex and their seven figure advisory roles. The only way they are allowed to get and maintain those positions is because they receive a Top Secret security clearance for life. Only the government can give that, and only the government can take it away.

What I think this government should do is strip each one of these 51 intelligence officials of their security clearances, forever. While I know the executive branch won’t do that, Congress, with the House side controlled by the Republicans, are the ones responsible for funding their security clearances going forward. They could strip them, by line-item budgeting, in the process. They could take away the security clearances for the folks that we’ve talked about. That’s something I will call on Congress to do publicly.

I’m actually now doing it for the first time ever, and I’m not sure they’re going to listen to me. While we can’t have the accountability we want from the executive branch and the DOJ to run an investigation, we can and should exact accountability by stripping away their security clearances because they intentionally lied to the American public and the world. They got caught. They continue to lie. They should not be able to make money off their lies.

Mr. Jekielek:

Speaking about congressional oversight, it seems like Jim Jordan, head of the House Judiciary Committee, has called in many of the heads of the Big Tech giants to talk about how they worked with the federal government, and they have until late March to produce whatever documents or emails exist of communications around this type of possible censorship. What we found in the Twitter files, I call in my own mind, the Twitter files for the Big Tech giants. That’s what I think Jim Jordan is looking for. Do you think something will come of this?

Mr. Patel:

He issued these subpoenas against the guys and gals that are running Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple. He excluded Twitter for what you alluded to earlier. Jim Jordan has come out publicly and said, “Twitter has been cooperating through their version of the Twitter files to expose the weaponization of government,” so these other five have come in. He’s also told them to produce every document.

This is the important part for me, and what we’ve been asking for all this time. Because the testimony, Jan, is what I call window dressing. I’m not really worried about that testimony from those CEOs. I want the documentation. I want the receipts for the American people. They are going to have to produce all of the documentation that Jim Jordan asked for. What he asked for was pretty detailed, but also pretty wide-spanning.

He wants every piece of documentation, email, memorandum, contract, and text message from these and all of the employees at these respective companies back to the federal government, whether it’s the FBI, DOJ, or otherwise, showing any discussions involving censorship, involving First Amendment speech, involving collaboration between the government agencies and their respective companies regarding what they can and can’t put out on their platforms, especially as it relates to pending election matters. That is a pretty wide net.

Now, they did give these companies about five weeks to respond, and I suspect these companies will take all that time and ask for more time. But what I’m asking Jim Jordan to do now is send a subpoena the other way. This is how you set the trap, Jan. It’s kind of what we did in Russiagate.

What I mean by that is you’ve subpoenaed the private sector individuals, the companies, and that documentation. That’s step one. On a parallel track, he needs to be subpoenaing the FBI and DOJ, specifically asking for the same exact information that was sent from the government to the private sector. The critical request must come in the following fashion, that is the contracts and agreements that the FBI and DOJ had with every one of the companies we just listed, and how much taxpayer money to the tune of millions was being sent to every one of these companies for the very matter that Jim Jordan is investigating, the weaponization and censorship between Big Tech and government.

Once you run those two subpoenas on a parallel track, Jan, then you can get some real documentation and answers for the American people, because someone is going to get caught lying. Now, since there’s such a big microscope on these private companies, the FBI and DOJ, they’re going to be very careful as to how they talk to each other, so they’re not caught collaborating on production subsequent to a congressional subpoena.

It’s critically important that the FBI and DOJ also be put on notice, and also have their former officials and current officials, who are responsible for that 80-election-member task force out of the FBI to be subpoenaed. Then, there needs to be a run of show, an order of sequence in terms of who goes first and when, and whether these interviews are going to be public, or whether they’re going to be private.

I’m for a combined approach, because as the guy who did 70 closed-door interrogations, there’s a lot of value to sitting down with these individuals for hours on end without a timer, so you’re not obtaining just a five-second news headline, but you’re going through the documents, and you’re placing them under oath. And then, you release these transcripts for the American people. You do the same exact thing with the FBI. Then, at the end of it all, you invite them back to testify publicly, pursuant to a subpoena.

Then, you have them under oath. You can highlight the points that need to be shown to the American people so you can say, “We are not just talking about accountability. We are delivering on it.” It’s an extensive process, Jan. This is the first step. We’ll see if this committee’s willing to take the next two to three steps we have just outlined here.

Mr. Jekielek:

A couple of quick thoughts, number one is there’s a little bit of a head start, here, with the discovery materials from the Missouri v. Biden case. That’s number one. Number two, and this is something that I know is on a lot of people’s minds, in the Twitter files, there’s this discussion of this other unnamed agency, which a few people have identified as the CIA, as being involved. Is this something that these hearings may discover?

Mr. Patel:

Yes. Look, it wouldn’t be the first time. Remember, the CIA was involved in Russiagate, and they were in direct communication with the FBI. In fact, Brennan, one of the signatories to the letter, was the Director of the CIA who thought so much of the intelligence that came in, that Hillary Clinton was setting up an operation, that he went and briefed President Obama while he was still president.

This man’s CIA was then later found to have participated in the Russiagate conspiracy by allowing the Hillary Clinton campaign and Michael Sussmann, and we’ve covered this extensively, to go in there and drop off information, and say, “Look. You have to look at Alpha Bank,” which we now know has been totally debunked, thanks to John Durham and his investigation. And these were the guys that were also running the Fusion GPS scandal into the FBI.

I don’t, for one second, give the CIA a pass on this entire review that the weaponization of the government subcommittee is doing with Jim Jordan. I did just say FBI and DOJ, but we need to include the CIA. That’s a great point, Jan, in terms of who they investigate and what documentation is brought forward.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s shift to the foreign policy sphere. There has been more reporting on this Chinese spy balloon. There has even been reporting that has been confirmed now that it was detected as early as the time when it was actually leaving China. It’s so bizarre that this narrative around the Chinese spy balloon keeps evolving more and more. I’m almost wondering what the next revelation will be in the saga of the balloon.

Mr. Patel:

Jan, the truth has a funny way of evolving when you hide it, and especially when your government hides it. Let’s start at the beginning because we didn’t have an opportunity to unpack this during last week’s episode, and a lot of this information has just come to light. As a former Chief of Staff to DOD and Deputy Director of National Intelligence, I’m pretty familiar with the collection capabilities that the United States government has on land, over sea, under sea, and in space.

I, for one, have called it. I believe our government detected this balloon once it left mainland China. There’s no way we missed it. It’s going to come out, and we’ll talk about the intelligence briefing or lack thereof that the Biden Administration gave to the Congress. We’ll get there. What the Intel committees need to do is subpoena the documentation from the DOD and Intel community, requesting all the coverage that focuses on this balloon.

Here’s what you’re going to find. We knew about it for however many weeks it takes that balloon to fly across the Pacific and hit the Aleutian Islands. The next question is why did our government hide it from us? More importantly, maybe there was a national security reason to hide it from us, but why didn’t they act? Why didn’t they do something before it hit the Aleutian Islands and the territorial waters of the United States? That is just a reset on the intel perspective, on how we, America, have the collection capabilities to detect these things. That’s step one.

What’s happened since then is, of course, we’ve identified all these other objects, whether you want to call them balloons, or octagons, or whatever they’re being called in the mainstream media. We won’t fully know the origin of these objects until they are exploited, as we say in the Intel community, until they are collected, retrieved, and the data and parts are pulled apart, and we look at the insides.

We now know the red balloon had a payload, had a sensor capability, had a signals intelligence capability, had maneuverability, and it was confirmed that it was the CCP who put this thing together. That means it was remote-controlled by someone from far away to go to certain places, i.e., over America’s missile silos, farmlands that the CCP was buying, and directly do collection against American personnel.

These other instruments, Jan, I don’t necessarily believe, off the mark, that they were going to be found to have been from the CCP. They could be from another foreign actor. They could be from a private actor. We just don’t have enough information, but from a first glance, the sensor payloads that are on these other objects differ quite substantially than the one that we found, or we are being told about, that was on the red balloon from mainland China.

That’s my first indication that there’s a little bit of a divergence, a split. Now, it could just mean there’s a different intelligence collection capability installed on that platform, but let’s give the Biden Administration the benefit of the doubt. They’ve already gone to the podium at the White House and said about the other objects, and I’m summarizing, basically, there’s nothing when it comes to the objects over Lake Huron and the other couple of objects we found.

It’s okay for us to question that, based on the credibility or lack thereof of the Biden Administration, as it relates to these overhead objects. One thing that no one’s talking about is President Biden went out there and said, without equivocation, “We, the United States, have no overhead collection on mainland China.” Jan, I hope he’s lying, because if we, the United States, and I’m speaking generally, are not in a position to collect against the CCP, our number one adversary, then we are failing the national security mission of the United States of America. That is a whole other matter that now needs to be investigated, saying, “Did the Biden Administration change the intelligence priorities and the national security mission of this country to just take China and the CCP off the map?”

To me, that’s the most consequential piece that no one in the media is talking about. I hope someone asks President Biden, and asks the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the CIA, and the Director of the NSA, whether or not those capabilities have been pulled down.

Mr. Jekielek:

Just on that point, you would think this would be something there should be a Gang of Eight briefing on, urgently, just off the top of my head. One thing I wanted to mention, I think the top general at NORAD, he actually mentioned these objects, and he’s not excluding that they could be from further afar than the places you’ve mentioned.

Mr. Patel:

You’re talking about General VanHerck, who used to work for me when I was Chief of Staff at DOD. Just to give our audience a flavor of how the DOD breaks down the world in terms of areas of coverage, they’re called combatant commands, and they’re based upon geography. NORTHCOM, Northern Command, is the command center that the DOD has for the United States of America and all of the geography that is North America.

Also, housed within NORTHCOM is this thing you’ve heard in movies from the eighties and nineties called NORAD. It’s a big missile defense system operation that nests within NORTHCOM, a joint mission set between the United States of America and Canada, that goes back to the Cold War days to detect missiles and incoming objects from the Soviet Union. We kept it to watch the skies.

This guy, VanHerck, who’s responsible as the four-star General, the number one officer there, he comes out and makes a dangerous statement, and a grossly misleading one, by saying, when asked, “Can you rule out,” and I’m paraphrasing, “Can you, the NORTHCOM Commander, rule out alien participation in these flying objects?” He said, “No.”

Having been the Chief of Staff at DOD, a four-star General, who is the leader of the combatant command, does not make that statement to the international media without that talking point having been approved by the Secretary of Defense and the White House. My big takeaway is this was a coordinated statement from our government, the Biden Administration, and our national security apparatus to distract us from the bigger issues…well, I don’t want to say, “the bigger issues.” Let’s say, other major issues that are plaguing the Biden Administration right now, i.e., the Hunter Biden laptop scenario, and the Biden classified documents. That matter hasn’t been talked about in almost a few weeks, it seems, with all the other failures that are going on.

It’s also being used as a cover to allow the Biden Administration to not properly inform Congress, as you said, the Gang of Eight and otherwise, as to the originations of the red balloon and the other objects, and why we failed to detect them, or did we detect them as I believe, and lie about it to the world. This is a terrible day for the United States Department of Defense to allow its top combating general of NORTHCOM to go out there and put out such hyperbole so that people in the media can grasp at it, and are talking about aliens, instead of talking about how we better protect this nation against the CCP.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to pick up on something you mentioned earlier. There was a briefing that was given to a number of senators, and they weren’t happy with it.

Mr. Patel:

Yes, to senators and I don’t know if it has been offered to the House, yet, Jan. But I know it was offered to just senators. They left that briefing and said, “Essentially, we were told nothing.” They know no more about the origins of it. They don’t know when it was detected. They don’t know why it was taking so long for it to be removed or the threat eliminated, and they don’t know anything about the other objects. That’s essentially what they said. They went into this black hole of a room, were told a couple of things, and were also told, “Reminder, it’s all classified,” but left with no answers.

That’s not oversight. That’s not accountability. That is an executive branch government looking to cover up mistakes and failures on the national security scene. They’re continuing to do so publicly, like with the statements that VanHerck is making out of NORTHCOM publicly, like their statements they’re making from the podium at the White House, through the press secretaries, and privately, when they’re going to brief members of Congress.

We have heard zero commentary from Democrats and Republicans, Jan, that they appreciated the details of the briefing. In fact, we heard quite the opposite, both Democrats and Republicans saying, “We know less than we knew when we walked into the room.”

Mr. Jekielek:

Kash, as you’re speaking here, and as we’re finishing up our season six here, I can’t help but think there’s so much going on. It almost feels like chaos and information overload. On top of everything else we’ve talked about, there’s this major toxic spill in Ohio, which again, there’s questions about how effective the federal government has been at dealing with it. Residents are not happy, and all of this is happening at the same time, and no one really knows what to make of it.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. Jan, I’ll leave the discussions about the failures of the transportation secretary for another day. What I’d like to focus on is how I believe the CCP and other foreign actors are attacking us on a multipronged line of effort approach. What I mean by that, Jan, is from my time in government, one of our biggest critical failures in the United States of America has been to upgrade our electrical grid system and what we call our switch system. Essentially, that provides power from one coast to the other. Once that goes down, everything goes down, railroads, factories, computer companies, fast food restaurants, cell phone towers, homes, literally everything.

It’s been something that we wanted to harden during the Trump Administration, and we tried to do it, but it’s not a four-year lift. It’s like a 20-year lift. When I see things like the railroad disaster in Ohio, I don’t see statements from the railroads, themselves, or FEMA, or otherwise to direct us immediately to what was the cause of it, i.e., a broken railroad tie, or a disjointed piece of track, or a human error.

We’ve talked about it in the show before, Jan, and I’m not jumping to the outright conspiracy. But I do want to alert people to the fact that the CCP doesn’t operate on a singular plane. That is, they don’t say, “How do we mess with America one singular way for this entire month and not do anything else?” What they’re masters at is both intrusions, and distractions, and propaganda. We’ve covered the latter, too.

The first one, the intrusion part, is they are some of the best at cyber-intrusions into American network infrastructure, not just governments, but private companies, including those electrical grid systems that I was talking about, in the switches. Did a foreign actor hack into one of these while we were so preoccupied looking up in the sky, with this CCP balloon fiasco, that we missed hardening our infrastructure to detect, and prevent, and stop these infiltrations?

I think so. It’s happened in the past, and it took us months, and months, and months to detect it, and then, it took us even more months to let the American public know about it, as we’ve seen occur. I want Congress to investigate whether or not the priorities of this administration when it comes to detection and prevention of our hardened infrastructure systems has been a priority. I just haven’t heard that it has been one. I’ve heard of these cyber attacks that have been going on.

Here’s another thing, Jan. We did this during the Trump Administration. When there were these types of intrusions, we expelled the diplomats from Russia. We reduced the number of diplomats from mainland China. This administration has taken no such steps. This CCP balloon was caught flying, and detecting, and infiltrating American land space, American machinery, and American people. This administration, from a diplomatic standpoint, almost sent the Secretary of State over there the next day, and hasn’t expelled a single Chinese diplomat.

That’s how you take action to show the American public you’re serious about the situation. All the actions that the Biden Administration has taken, pursuant to the CCP balloon, has been one of obfuscation, deflection, coverup. Sadly, that leads only to one thing, which is the failure of the American national security mission.

Mr. Jekielek:

Kash, this is a very interesting analysis. Of course, the CCP, as you’re saying, is an expert at this asymmetrical or hybrid warfare, using basically all means at once to wage what we’ve described in a recent documentary as their final war to overtake America as the primary world power. You’re absolutely right. We should be looking in those places where no one’s looking, as we’re focused on this suite of issues that we’re seeing all at the same time.

Mr. Patel:

Yes. Jan, we covered it all in season six. We always touch on national security, defense, and intelligence. One of the common threads that’s been a theme for us has been the CCP and its operations against America, also Russia, also Iran, and other state actors, bad actors who want to threaten harm to America, and place themselves above America on the international stage.

Hopefully, we’ll see more actions from this Congress to steer America back towards superiority, in those lines of efforts to safeguard our nation. We’re just going to have to wait and see. Either way, Jan, when we come back for season seven, you know we’ll be dissecting whatever measures have been taken, and more importantly, what measures have not been taken.

Mr. Jekielek:

Kash, as we finish up season six here, it’s time for our shoutout.

Mr. Patel:

You’re right, Jan. It is time for our shoutout. Before I get to it, I just want to thank the entire Epoch staff, crew, and team for putting on such amazing shows throughout season six and all of the seasons, for going on the road with us, and for working with our demanding schedules. They are really the best in the business. I can’t thank you all enough for that.

I do want to give a shout out this week to Paul Hansen. Thanks so much for your lovely note on our comments board. I also want to extend a shoutout to our live chat. It has been more than lively during season six. It’s been built up into quite a raucous and lovely debate stage. I enjoy it thoroughly. I know you do, too, Jan.

We hope the entire audience tells everyone about the live chats on Friday night that accompany every episode of Kash’s Corner. As we wrap up season six, we will, of course, be back for season seven in a few weeks. Thanks so much for watching our great show, and we’ll see you soon.