@Kash Patel joins the show to discuss the J6 Tapes released by Speaker Mike Johnson
START AT 44:30
why did the Unselect Jan 6 Committee bury my transcript, why did the main stream media fail to cover any of the truth, why did the Colorado judge in the trump case lie and cover for the deep state- story coming soon. we taking them all down
The Deposition of Kashyap Pramod Patel
(summarized by ChatGPT)
The deposition of Kashyap Pramod Patel conducted by the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. This deposition took place on December 9, 2021, in Washington D.C. The document covers the initial procedural discussions, the presence of legal representatives, and the laying down of rules and procedures for the deposition.
The main focus of the deposition is Kash Patel's testimony regarding the events of January 6th, his role, and actions in response to the unrest at the Capitol. Patel, in his opening statement, emphasizes his pride in his 16 years of public service, including during the Trump administration. He unequivocally states that he had no information about, nor would have participated in, any attempt to improperly maintain power after President Trump's term. Patel also highlights his history as the first person of color in several government positions.
Patel raises concerns about the fairness of the proceedings, citing the issuance of a subpoena without prior notice and the personal attacks he faced, which he claims influenced his view of receiving a fair hearing. Despite these concerns, he expresses his willingness to answer questions to the best of his ability.
He notes his lack of access to his government communications or records, which may limit his ability to recall specific details about the events being investigated. Patel also points out that certain information related to national security, defense, intelligence, and foreign policy, including communications with senior White House officials, is classified, and he has not been cleared to discuss such classified information.
Patel questions some of the lines of inquiry proposed by the committee, seeking clarification on how they relate to the legislative purpose of the investigation. He explains his varied roles in the Trump administration, emphasizing his background in national security and counterterrorism, and outlines his responsibilities and actions during his tenure, particularly around the events of January 6th.
He concludes by detailing his career, starting from his legal career as a state public defender to his role in the Department of Defense, where he served as the chief of staff. Patel underscores his involvement in key national security and counterterrorism decisions and reiterates his commitment to answering the committee's questions while maintaining the confidentiality of classified information.
The document then proceeds to a question-and-answer session where Patel is asked about his career, his roles in the Trump administration, and his actions and responsibilities related to the events of January 6th. The questions aim to clarify his involvement and perspective on the preparations and response to the Capitol attack.
This covers the initial portions of the document. The full document is extensive and contains detailed discussions and testimonies about the events of January 6th, Patel's role in the Trump administration, and other related matters.
The remainder of the deposition transcript covers several key topics and themes related to Kash Patel's role and actions during the January 6th, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and his tenure in the Trump administration. Here is a quick summary of these themes:
1. Patel's Role in the Trump Administration: The deposition probes Patel's various roles in the Trump administration, focusing on his transition from the National Security Council to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Questions are asked about his responsibilities, particularly in the context of the January 6th events, and his interactions with other key officials.
Patel detailed his transition from the National Security Council to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
He discussed his responsibilities in these roles, emphasizing his involvement in national security matters.
2. Events Leading to January 6th: The questioning delves into the events and communications leading up to January 6th. This includes discussions about intelligence reports, threat assessments, and any forewarning of the potential for violence at the Capitol. Patel's testimony is scrutinized to understand what the administration knew about the threats and how they prepared for them.
Patel was questioned about the administration's awareness of potential threats leading up to January 6th.
The focus was on intelligence reports and threat assessments received prior to the attack.
3. Response to the Capitol Attack: A significant portion of the questioning focuses on the response to the Capitol attack. This includes Patel's personal actions on that day, his communications with other government officials, and the decision-making process regarding deploying the National Guard and other security measures.
Inquiry into Patel's actions on January 6th, including how he and others in the administration responded to the unfolding events.
Discussion about decisions related to deploying the National Guard and other security responses.
4. Communication with President Trump: The committee inquires about Patel's communication with President Donald Trump, particularly on January 6th. This includes questions about whether Patel advised or spoke with Trump during the attack, and the nature of their conversations.
The committee probed Patel's interactions with President Trump on the day of the attack.
Questions centered on whether Patel advised or communicated with Trump during the events.
5. Election Fraud Claims: The transcript touches on the topic of the 2020 Presidential Election and the administration's claims of election fraud. Patel is questioned about his views on the election results, his interactions with individuals advocating for the claims of fraud, and any role he may have played in advising the President on this matter.
Patel was asked about his views on the 2020 Presidential Election results and the administration's claims of election fraud.
The questioning included his potential involvement or advisory role in these claims.
6. Internal Dynamics within the Administration: There are questions related to the internal dynamics and decision-making within the Trump administration, especially in the context of national security and defense. This includes inquiries about Patel's relationship with other key figures in the administration and any disagreements or discussions regarding the handling of the January 6th events.
Questions aimed to uncover the internal decision-making processes within the Trump administration, especially regarding national security.
Patel's relationships and interactions with other key administration figures were discussed.
7. Classified Information and Executive Privilege: Throughout the deposition, Patel frequently references the limitations placed on his testimony by classified information and executive privilege. He stresses his commitment to maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive information, which impacts his ability to fully answer certain questions.
Throughout the deposition, Patel frequently cited constraints due to classified information and executive privilege.
This limited his ability to provide detailed responses to some of the questions.
8. Patel's Perspectives and Conclusions: The deposition also captures Patel's personal perspectives on the events of January 6th and his tenure in the Trump administration. He offers his views on the Capitol attack, the administration's response, and the broader political and security implications.
Patel shared his personal views on the events of January 6th and his experiences in the administration.
He reflected on the implications of the Capitol attack and the government's response.
Communication with Key Political Figures:
Kash Patel was on calls with members of Congress on January 6th, including discussions with Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi
In the deposition transcript of Kash Patel, the first point of interest is his communication with key political figures, particularly on January 6th. This includes his interactions with Senator Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both of whom are prominent members of Congress.
During his testimony, Patel mentioned that on January 6th, he, along with the Acting Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, collectively spoke to members of the "Gang of Eight." The "Gang of Eight" is a term used to refer to the eight leaders within Congress who are briefed on classified intelligence matters. This group includes the leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress, as well as the chairpersons and ranking members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. In this context, it includes Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi.
This particular discussion is significant because it indicates that on a day as tumultuous as January 6th, key defense officials, including Patel, were in direct communication with top Congressional leaders. Such communication could have been crucial for conveying real-time information about the unfolding situation at the Capitol, discussing the federal response, and coordinating actions between the legislative and executive branches of the government.
The content of these discussions is not detailed in the quoted excerpt from the deposition. However, the mere fact that these communications took place highlights the level of engagement and seriousness with which the situation was being handled at the highest levels of the U.S. government. It also demonstrates the role Patel played in facilitating communication between the Department of Defense and Congressional leaders during a critical national crisis
· Engagement with Mayor Muriel Bowser:
Patel discussed interactions with Mayor Bowser's office around December 31, 2020, specifically related to the D.C. National Guard request
In the second point from the deposition transcript of Kash Patel, the focus is on his engagement with Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington D.C., particularly concerning the D.C. National Guard request in the lead-up to January 6th.
Patel discussed interactions with Mayor Bowser's office, referencing a specific time frame around December 31, 2020. This period is significant as it was just a week before the January 6th events at the Capitol. The discussion with Mayor Bowser's office pertained to the D.C. National Guard and its potential deployment in response to anticipated events in the capital city.
The context of these interactions suggests that there was some level of awareness and preparation for potential unrest or security needs around the time of the Electoral College certification. However, Patel noted that he did not have access to all underlying documents, indicating that his recall of these interactions could be limited.
Furthermore, Patel's testimony hints at the procedural aspects of deploying the National Guard in Washington D.C., which is unique due to the district's status and the involvement of federal authorities. The request for National Guard support by Mayor Bowser would typically be routed through the Department of Defense hierarchy, ultimately needing approval from higher levels within the government.
This part of Patel's deposition is important as it sheds light on the communications and decision-making processes between federal and local authorities regarding security preparations for significant events like the January 6th Capitol incident. It underscores the complexities and bureaucratic procedures involved in mobilizing the National Guard, especially in a politically and operationally sensitive environment like Washington D.C. during a pivotal moment in the electoral process
· Request for Troops and Communication with Pelosi:
There was a conversation about a potential request for 10,000 troops. Patel did not recall if this request was conveyed to Speaker Pelosi
In the third point from Kash Patel's deposition, there is a discussion about a potential request for 10,000 troops and whether this request was communicated to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. This topic is particularly relevant in understanding the extent of preparedness and the level of communication between different branches of the government in the days leading up to January 6th.
Patel was questioned about whether he recalled a request for 10,000 troops by President Trump and if this request was ever conveyed to Speaker Pelosi. This line of inquiry aimed to determine the level of coordination and awareness among top government officials regarding the potential scale of the security response needed for the events surrounding the electoral vote certification.
Patel's response indicates a level of uncertainty or lack of detailed recollection about this specific matter. He did not clearly recall if such a request was made by President Trump or if it was communicated to Speaker Pelosi. This lack of certainty in his testimony reflects either the complexity and rapid pace of events and decisions during that time or a gap in the communication chain among key government officials.
The question of deploying a significant number of troops in the nation's capital is a matter of considerable importance, given the implications for civil order, the safety of public spaces, and the perception of military involvement in civilian political processes. The fact that this was a topic of discussion, whether or not it materialized into a formal request communicated to congressional leaders, highlights the seriousness with which some in the government were viewing the potential for unrest on January 6th
· Department of Defense's (DoD) Awareness and Response:
The DoD was aware of potential threats and relied on law enforcement partners, including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, for intelligence
In the fourth section of Kash Patel's deposition, the focus is on the Department of Defense's (DoD) awareness and response to the events leading up to January 6th. This section is crucial for understanding how the DoD, a key player in national security, perceived and prepared for the potential threats on that day.
Patel discussed the DoD's reliance on law enforcement partners, such as the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, for intelligence related to domestic security threats. He emphasized that the DoD itself did not have the intelligence capabilities or legal authority to collect information on domestic citizens. Therefore, the department depended on these law enforcement partners to provide relevant intelligence.
This reliance is significant because it illustrates the division of responsibilities and limitations in intelligence-gathering within the U.S. government, especially regarding domestic issues. The DoD's role in the domestic context is typically supportive and is activated only under specific circumstances, such as requests from local authorities for National Guard deployment.
Patel's testimony also touched on the understanding of the threat landscape going into January 6th. He noted that, to his knowledge, there wasn't any intelligence from these law enforcement agencies that caused great concern at the DoD about the events of January 6th. This statement is particularly noteworthy as it suggests that either the intelligence did not indicate a high probability of the level of violence that occurred, or that the information was not interpreted as indicating such a threat.
The discussion about the DoD's awareness and response underscores the complexities in threat assessment and inter-agency communication and coordination. It highlights the challenges in preparing for and responding to dynamic and potentially volatile situations like the January 6th Capitol attack, especially when involving multiple agencies with different jurisdictions and capabilities
· Discussion of January 6th Events and Security Measures:
Patel talked about the security preparations and responses for January 6th, including the mobilization of the National Guard and communication with law enforcement
In the fifth section of Kash Patel's deposition, the topic centers on the specifics of the January 6th events, particularly focusing on the security preparations and responses. This section is significant as it delves into the actions taken by the Department of Defense (DoD) and other agencies in anticipation of and during the events at the U.S. Capitol.
Patel discussed the process of mobilizing the National Guard in response to the situation. He explained that the National Guard's deployment requires a request from local authorities, such as mayors or governors, and presidential authorization. This process is indicative of the legal and procedural framework governing the use of the National Guard in domestic situations, especially in a unique jurisdiction like Washington D.C.
He also mentioned preemptive actions taken by the DoD. Before January 6th, the DoD, anticipating potential security needs, reached out to Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Capitol Police to inquire if they needed National Guard support. Interestingly, Patel recalled that initially, both the mayor's office and the Capitol Police indicated they did not need the National Guard's assistance. This decision was later reversed as the events of January 6th unfolded and the need for additional security forces became clear.
This section of the deposition highlights the challenges in predicting and preparing for civil disturbances and the complexities involved in interagency communication and coordination. The fact that the DoD proactively reached out to local authorities demonstrates a level of concern and foresight. However, the initial refusal of National Guard support by local authorities points to possible misjudgments about the scale and intensity of the potential unrest.
The discussion about the January 6th security measures provides insight into the decision-making processes and the dynamics of federal and local interactions during a national security event. It underscores the criticality of timely and accurate assessment of security needs and the responsiveness of various government entities to emerging threats
· Chain of Command and Operational Decisions:
Patel emphasized the DoD's chain of command and operational decision-making processes, including interactions with the Secretary of the Army and other officials
In the sixth section of Kash Patel's deposition, the focus shifts to the chain of command and operational decisions within the Department of Defense (DoD) in relation to the events of January 6th. This section is crucial for understanding the hierarchical and procedural aspects of how the DoD managed its response to the Capitol attack.
Patel emphasized the operational chain of command within the DoD, particularly how the National Guard fits into this structure. He clarified that the National Guard reports to the Secretary of the Army, who then reports to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. This chain of command is significant because it outlines the bureaucratic process through which decisions about deploying the National Guard are made. It also highlights the levels of approval and coordination required within the DoD for such a deployment.
Further, Patel's testimony touched on the relationship between the DoD and local authorities, including Mayor Muriel Bowser's office. He mentioned that he, as the Chief of Staff, did not directly engage in calls with Mayor Bowser, indicating that this engagement was under the purview of the Secretary of the Army. This demarcation of responsibilities within the DoD points to the specialized roles different officials play in handling specific aspects of a crisis situation.
The discussion in this section brings to light the structured and hierarchical nature of decision-making in the DoD, especially during a crisis. It reveals the complexity of coordinating a federal response to a situation like the January 6th Capitol attack, which involves multiple layers of authority and decision-making. Understanding this chain of command is key to comprehending how military and defense resources are mobilized and managed in response to domestic emergencies
· Information and Intelligence Gathering:
Patel relied heavily on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for intelligence and information relevant to the events of January 6th
In the seventh section of Kash Patel's deposition, the focus is on his reference to limitations in his testimony due to classified information and executive privilege. This aspect of his deposition is critical as it highlights the constraints faced by government officials when discussing sensitive topics, especially those related to national security and internal executive branch communications.
Patel frequently cited the need to maintain the confidentiality of classified information, underscoring his commitment to adhering to legal and security protocols. The handling of classified information is governed by strict laws and regulations, and disclosure of such information without proper authorization can have serious legal and security implications.
Additionally, the concept of executive privilege was brought into the conversation. Executive privilege is a legal principle that allows the President and high-level executive branch officials to withhold information from Congress, courts, and the public. This privilege is often invoked to protect sensitive executive branch deliberations and decisions, but its extent and limits can be legally complex and politically contentious.
Patel's invocation of these constraints indicates that there were areas of inquiry or topics that he could not fully address in his testimony due to these legal and ethical boundaries. It also reflects the ongoing challenge in balancing the need for transparency and accountability in government proceedings with the necessity of protecting sensitive national security information and preserving the confidentiality of high-level governmental communications.
This section of the deposition underscores the tension between the public's right to know and the government's need to maintain confidentiality in matters of national security and executive deliberations. It also illustrates the legal and ethical dilemmas faced by government officials when testifying in inquiries that touch upon sensitive and classified matters
· Department of Justice's (DOJ) Role:
Patel discussed the DOJ's role as the lead federal agency during the events and referred to a memo related to January 5th and 6th preparations
In the eighth section of Kash Patel's deposition, the focus is on his personal perspectives and conclusions regarding his roles and experiences during his tenure in the Trump administration, particularly in relation to the events of January 6th. This section provides insight into Patel's own views and reflections on the Capitol attack and the broader context of his work in the administration.
Professional Background and Qualifications: Patel took this opportunity to outline his professional career, emphasizing his extensive experience in public service, particularly in the field of national security and legal representation. He detailed his journey from being a state public defender to working as an assistant federal public defender, dealing with complex international and national security-related crimes. Patel's career trajectory also included a tenure at the Justice Department during the Obama administration, highlighting his bipartisan service record
Reliance on Law Enforcement Intelligence: Patel discussed his reliance on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for intelligence and information relevant to January 6th. He expressed confidence in the FBI's capabilities and its role in providing law enforcement-related intelligence to the DoD. This reliance was important as it shaped the DoD's understanding and response to the potential threats on January 6th.
Preemptive Security Measures: Patel highlighted the preemptive measures taken by the DoD in anticipation of January 6th. He noted that there wasn't any intelligence from law enforcement partners that caused great concern, but the DoD still took proactive steps. This included seeking authorization from the President for the potential deployment of the National Guard and reaching out to local authorities to ascertain their security needs
Operational Challenges and Decision Making: Patel's testimony reflected the operational challenges and the complex decision-making processes involved in responding to a national security event like the Capitol attack. He described the dynamics of federal and local interactions and the need for timely assessment and responsiveness to emerging threats.
Overall, this section of the deposition sheds light on Patel's viewpoints and decision-making processes during a pivotal moment in U.S. history. His testimony provides a personal perspective on the challenges faced by government officials in handling situations of national significance, balancing security concerns with legal and procedural constraints. Patel's reflections offer an inside look into the workings of the government during a time of crisis, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the existing security and intelligence apparatus.
---------
The deposition does not provide specific details about undercover officers, embedded agitators, or federal agents infiltrating and inciting a riot. The focus is more on the communication, preparedness, and response of various government departments and officials to the January 6th events.
Comments