    [Senate Hearing 119-134]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 119-134

                          CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
                       NOMINATION OF KASHYAP PRAMOD PATEL
                             TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
                        FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 30, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-119-2

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                 __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-322                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                       Ranking Member
    MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            PETER WELCH, Vermont
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

                 Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
             Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     1
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     6
    Tillis, Hon. Thom................................................    10

                                    NOMINEE

    Patel, Kashyap Pramod............................................    11
        Questionnaire................................................    96
        Responses to written questions...............................   123

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................   271

                          CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
                       NOMINATION OF KASHYAP PRAMOD PATEL
                             TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
                       FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2025

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in
    Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Graham, Cornyn,
    Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Tillis, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt,
    Moody, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal,
    Hirono, Booker, Padilla, Welch, and Schiff.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. Before we begin, I'd like to say that
    our prayers are with the victims and the first responders of
    the horrible tragedy at Reagan Airport. It's reported that more
    than 60 souls were on board the plane and the helicopter that
    collided over the Potomac River. This is a horrible, hard-to-
    understand disaster that demands answers. As first responders
    continue their recovery effort and as investigators begin their
    work, Congress will work with the administration to get to the
    bottom of this, keep all those--and we should all keep the
    people impacted in our prayers. So maybe we should, just for a
    short period of time, think about this tragedy.
        [Pause.]
        Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to this very
    important hearing to consider the nomination of Kash Patel to
    serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    Congratulations on your nomination.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. And thank you for your willingness to
    serve.
        Before we get started, I want to set out a couple of ground
    rules, kind of ordinary for controversial hearings like this. I
    want everyone here to be able to watch the hearing without
    obstruction. If people stand up and block the view of those
    behind them or if they speak out of turn, it's quite obvious
    that it's not fair or considerate to everybody else in this
    room. So officers would immediately remove those individuals.
        Now I will explain how we're going to proceed. I'll give my
    opening remarks and then invite Ranking Member Durbin to give
    opening remarks, then Senator Tillis will introduce the
    nominee. After that, Mr. Patel will have a chance to give his
    opening statements after we swear him. Following Mr. Patel's
    statement, we'll begin the first round of questioning. Each
    Senator will have an initial 7-minute round of questions. After
    the first round, we'll do a second 3-minute round of questions.
        I ask Members to do their best to adhere to these limits so
    that we can proceed efficiently, and I thank each of the
    Members of this Committee because when we had Attorney General
    nominee Bondi here, everybody stayed within their time. I
    expect Mr. Patel to be treated fairly by my colleagues.
        We're here today to consider the nomination of Kash Patel
    to serve as Director of the FBI. You're nominated, Mr. Patel,
    to one of the most important offices in our Government, and to
    get here this far along in the process of your nomination, you
    gave us much information. You submitted over a thousand pages
    of records to the Committee, over a thousand individual
    interviews, and many hundreds of hours of media. I thank your
    family for coming. I know some of them have traveled to get
    here and I know they're very proud of you, and I determined
    that by looking them in the face.
        Public trust in the FBI is low. Only 41 percent of the
    American people think the FBI is doing a good job. This is the
    lowest rating in a century. It's no surprise that public trust
    has declined in an institution that has been plagued by abuse,
    lack of transparency, and weaponization of law enforcement.
        Nevertheless, the FBI remains an important, even
    indispensable institution for law and order in our country.
    It's the people on the top floor of the J. Edgar Hoover
    Building, not your local FBI agents, that have caused the low
    approval rating. Mr. Patel, I know you know this, but it's your
    job to restore the public trust and return the FBI to its core
    mission of fighting crime. Your extensive background gives you
    a unique position to make this happen.
        Mr. Patel's career has been a study in fighting unpopular
    but righteous causes exposing corruption and putting America
    first. For almost a decade, Mr. Patel served as a public
    defender, defending the constitutional rights of some of the
    least popular people in this country. After serving as a public
    defender, Mr. Patel joined the Department of Justice under
    President Obama as a counterterrorism prosecutor in the
    National Security Division. In this role, he investigated and
    he prosecuted many important cases, including the World Cup
    bombing in Uganda in 2010, for which he received an award of
    excellence.
        In 2017, Representative Devin Nunes asked Mr. Patel to join
    the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to uncover
    the truth about Russiagate--and Mr. Patel did uncover the
    truth. It was during this period of time, if you remember, I
    first met you, Mr. Patel.
        Through tireless work, Mr. Patel showed that Crossfire
    Hurricane was based upon fraudulent, discredited information
    paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton
    campaign. As a reward for his efforts to uncover the truth,
    mainstream media--can you believe this--personally attacked Mr.
    Patel, and the FBI secretly subpoenaed his records. Now, I know
    what that is because my staff received similar treatment during
    my investigation. The attacks Mr. Patel faced during his work
    in the House of Representatives are similar to the ones that he
    faces today. I expect many of these underhanded attacks will be
    repeated today.
        Mr. Patel has been accused of--and I--of having, quote,
    unquote, ``an enemies list.'' This is not a fair
    characterization. As he stated, quote, ``There's no revenge
    list,'' end of quote. Mr. Patel has identified those he
    believes have put politics and personal ambition over service
    to the country. He's called out those who've used the
    institutions, like the FBI, to achieve their own personal gain.
    Mr. Patel has said he believes that people who do this should
    be named and that Americans deserve transparency so that they
    can make their own judgment, as they did in this last election.
        Other attacks against Mr. Patel are similarly unfounded--to
    take just one example, in fact--to take just one example, he's
    been accused of jeopardizing hostage rescues. In fact, those
    allegations have been repeatedly shown to be false smears. As
    numerous national security officials have said publicly, and on
    the record, Mr. Patel played a critical role in returning
    Americans safely home and has done so through hard work and
    personal cost to him.
        Mr. Patel has been accused of being unqualified to be FBI
    Director. This suggestion ignores his impressive career at the
    highest levels of Government service. After exposing Russiagate
    scandal in the Congress, Mr. Patel served in roles such as
    Senior Director of Counterterrorism at the National Security
    Council, Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Chief of
    Staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense.
        Mr. Patel managed large intelligence and defense
    bureaucracies, identified and countered national security
    threats, prosecuted and defended criminals. He's done this
    while fighting for transparency and accountability in the
    Government. Mr. Patel has precisely the qualifications we need
    at this time when the FBI is not being respected by our public.
        Mr. Patel, should you be confirmed, you'll take charge of
    an FBI that is in crisis. Recently, my oversight exposed that a
    special agent in charge of the FBI New Orleans field office was
    on vacation during New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. Of course
    that also included the Sugar Bowl. Senior personnel should be
    at their posts, not on vacation, during critical security
    events. And we all remember what happened at that time in New
    Orleans. But, of course, this FBI agent would find it
    acceptable to do what he did.
        In August 2022, at an FBI oversight hearing of this
    Committee, the Director Wray decided to leave early. I asked
    him to stay just 1 hour and 20 minutes longer, but he already
    made up his mind that he was going to leave. Later, under
    questioning in November of that year by Senator Hawley,
    Director Wray admitted that he left this Committee hearing
    early so that he could go on vacation. These two instances,
    among others, are examples of a blatant disrespect that the FBI
    leadership has shown to this Committee and indirectly to the
    American people.
        In November 2022, I released internal FBI records that my
    office received, pursuant to lawful whistleblower disclosures.
    Those records provided data about how hundreds of FBI
    employees, who had retired or resigned to avoid discipline,
    many of those employees engaged in sexual misconduct in the
    workplace. Those records also showed lower-level FBI employees
    were punished--lower-level employees of the FBI were punished
    more harshly than senior-level employees. Now fairness was out
    the window.
        Over one year later, with no response from the FBI, I asked
    Director Wray about this at a December 5, 2023, hearing before
    this Committee. He publicly pledged to get me the data I
    requested in November, a year before. He and his Deputy
    Director never followed through.
        I also questioned Director Wray about improperly classified
    information relating to Afghan evacuees placed in our country.
    At that time, approximately 50 evacuees were already deemed
    potential national securities concerns. So what's the number
    now? The public has a right to know. I've also raised concerns
    about whistleblower disclosures, saying that the FBI moved
    agents from child sex abuse cases to those January 6 cases. The
    FBI, under Director Wray, never got his priorities straight.
        With respect to weaponization, I'd like to turn to a letter
    I wrote July 20 of 2022. That letter noted that Assistant
    Special-Agent-in-Charge Thibault was a key official involved in
    opening the elector case that became the Jack Smith lawfare
    operation. That's not supposed to happen. An official at
    Thibault's rank and position isn't supposed to open cases.
    That's the job of special agents. For those who don't remember,
    Thibault was the anti-Trump agent that violated the Hatch Act
    for his political conduct in office. My letter also noted that
    Richard Pilger, who ran the Justice Department's Elections
    Crime Branch, was involved in the approval.
        Now I'd like to call the Committee's attention to something
    I'm going to share with you--information about the FBI that's
    never been made public before.
        Chairman Grassley [off microphone]. Do you have those?
        [Voice heard off microphone.] Binder--the binder over here.
        Chairman Grassley. Oh yes, I'm sorry.
        In my hand are a series of FBI emails.
        The first is an email that Thibault sent to a subordinate
    agent on February 14, 2022. He said, quote, ``Here is the draft
    opening language we discussed,'' end quote. The draft opening
    was attached, and it included material that would later become
    part of Jack Smith's elector case.
        The second email, February 24, 2022, email from Thibault to
    John Crabb, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
    District of Columbia, saying, quote, ``I had a discussion with
    the case team, and we believe there is predication to include
    former President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, as a
    predicated subject,'' end quote. This FBI case would later be
    code-named Arctic Frost.
        The third email, February 24, 2022, email from Thibault to
    John Crabb, noting that the Attorney General and the FBI
    approval will be sought to open the case.
        The fourth email, February 25, 2022, email from Thibault--
    subordinate agent, saying they added Trump and others as a
    criminal subject to the case. Thibault responded, quote,
    unquote, ``Perfect.''
        The fifth email, March 22, 2022, from Thibault, emailing a
    version of an investigative opening for approval. This didn't
    include President Trump. I want to make clear, that one didn't
    include President Trump as a criminal subject.
        The sixth email is on April 11, 2022, from Thibault
    approving the opening of Arctic Frost.
        The seventh email is an April 13, 2022, email from FBI
    agent to Thibault stating that the FBI Deputy Director approved
    its opening.
        The eighth email, on the same date, had Thibault emailing
    John Crabb that the elector case was approved. Crabb responded,
    quote, ``Thanks a lot. Let's talk next week,'' end quote.
        Between March 22 and April 13, other versions of the
    document opening the investigation existed because a ninth
    email shows that the FBI General Counsel's Office made edits on
    March 25.
        Was Trump still removed as an investigative subject? If so,
    which Justice Department FBI officials, other than Jack Smith,
    later added him for prosecution? I expect the production of all
    records on this matter to better understand the full fact
    pattern and whether other records exist. Notably, approval of
    these documents was also given by Richard Pilger.
        This Committee has written about Pilger undermining the
    Justice Department's efforts during the 2020 election for
    partisan purposes. These emails and documents substantiate my
    July 2022 letter, which the FBI ignored. And I hope you, when
    you get there, won't ignore my letters. Partisan FBI agents and
    DOJ officials tried and ultimately succeeded in launching a
    full field criminal investigation and prosecution of the
    President of the United States. Justice Department and FBI
    leadership acted in concert to further a political scheme to
    take down Trump, just like they did with Crossfire Hurricane.
        They have yet to learn a lesson--and I hope you'll learn
    that lesson for them, or teach that lesson--and their conduct,
    yet again, seriously eroded integrity of this once-storied
    institution. As I've said before, if a politically charged
    investigation is to be opened, it must be done the right way.
    And that didn't happen here.
        Mr. Patel, in my time, I've never seen our law enforcement
    and Intelligence Community institutions so badly infected with
    political decision-making--and I say ``Intelligence Community''
    because you know what happened when 55 people--former or
    present intelligence agencies--signed a letter in 2020 that the
    laptop was a Russian hoax as an example. So all of this is
    these institutions breaking faith with we, the people.
        Mr. Patel, you must be fair, you must be consistent, but
    you must be aggressive. Your actions must be based on
    accountability. And transparency brings accountability. Should
    you do so, you'll have my support. And remember, either you're
    going to run your agency or the agency's going to run you. And
    the agency certainly ended up running Director Wray, and
    probably people before him.
        Without objection, I'm going to put in this letter in the
    record, and this letter was sent to Director Wray December the
    9th last year, calling for him and his Deputy to step down, and
    it's titled, quote, unquote, ``Failures.''
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Now, I turn to Ranking Member Durbin.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    commitment to the Judiciary Committee's long-standing
    bipartisan practice of vetting Presidential nominees.
        A little history. The FBI dates back to the start of the
    last century, 1908, when then-Attorney General Charles
    Bonaparte organized a special agent force. J. Edgar Hoover
    became Director of the FBI in 1924 and led the Bureau for 48
    years until his death in 1972. He is credited with
    professionalizing the Bureau and developing its investigative
    ability.
        However, with little or no oversight, Hoover also used the
    Bureau's investigative powers improperly. He infamously
    directed the FBI to spy on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
    Thurgood Marshall, and other civil rights leaders of the day.
        In 1975, the United States Senate created Frank Church's
    Committee, and they disclosed widespread abuses by the FBI and
    other U.S. intelligence agencies. The Church Committee
    concluded these agencies had engaged in illegal surveillance,
    and as a result, quote, ``groups and individuals have been
    assaulted, repressed, harassed, and disrupted because of their
    political views, social beliefs, and their lifestyles,'' and,
    quote, ``the intelligence agencies have served the political
    and personal objectives of Presidents and other high
    officials.''
        The Hoover era of the FBI, the Watergate scandal, and the
    findings of the Church Committee highlighted the risk of
    political interference in FBI investigations and led to
    significant, important reform. In 1976, Congress passed a law
    that limits the FBI Director to a single term of 10 years,
    which was intended to insulate that position from political
    influence, and, critically, we made the FBI Director's
    appointment subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
    That's why we're here today.
        Since 1935, the motto of the FBI has been Fidelity,
    Bravery, Integrity. These qualities represent the Bureau's core
    values and the high standards that are expected of all of its
    employees, including the Director of the FBI. After meeting
    with Mr. Patel and reviewing his record, I do not believe you
    meet the standard. Mr. Patel has neither the experience, the
    temperament, nor the judgment to lead an agency of 38,000
    agents in 400 field offices around the globe.
        During the time I've served on this Committee, I've had the
    opportunity to consider four FBI Director nominations. Each one
    was a Republican, and I voted for all of them. My concerns
    about the Director of the FBI are not partisan. As much as
    Republicans claim that President Biden and former Attorney
    General Garland weaponized the FBI, let's look at the record.
    President Biden kept the FBI Director, a lifelong Republican
    who'd been appointed by President Trump. Contrast that with
    President Trump: fired his first FBI Director, James Comey,
    forced out his second FBI Director, Chris Wray, for being
    insufficiently loyal. With Mr. Patel, however, obviously the
    President has found a loyalist.
        Mr. Patel's loyalty includes touting conspiracy theories
    that threatened efforts at President Trump's enemies. How do we
    know Mr. Patel's theories, his beliefs, what motivates him,
    what he really believes? He wrote it in a book. This book,
    ``Government Gangsters,'' I urge all of you to read before you
    cast a vote for this gentleman. Mr. Patel has published at the
    back of this book a list of 60 people----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Whom he calls, quote,
    ``members of the deep state''--60. This list includes many
    distinguished public servants who've dedicated their lives to
    our Nation. Among them are Democrats and Republicans, including
    former Trump administration officials, like the former
    Secretary of Defense Esper.
        Then there is Mr. Patel's plan to, quote--and I quote him,
    ``shut down the FBI Hoover building on day one, reopen it the
    next day as a museum of the deep state,'' and he has said,
    quote, ``We're going to come after people in the media. We're
    going to come after you. Whether it's criminally or civilly,
    we're putting you all on notice.''
        Does this sound like the kind of nonpartisan law
    enforcement professional who should lead the FBI? No, not to
    me. This is someone who's left behind a trail of grievances
    throughout his life, lashing out at anyone who disrespects him
    or doesn't agree with him. Don't take it from me. Listen to
    these Republicans who worked with him during the Trump's first
    administration.
        Attorney General Bill Barr, and I quote, ``I categorically
    oppose making Patel Deputy FBI Director. I said it would happen
    over my dead body. Patel had virtually no experience that would
    qualify him to serve at the highest level of the world's
    preeminent law enforcement agency.''
        National Security Advisor John Bolton: ``I didn't think he
    was qualified. He demonstrated no policy aptitude at all. I was
    forced to hire him.''
        President Trump's Deputy National Security Advisor Charles
    Kupperman: ``The idea that Kash Patel is going to be the FBI
    Director is appalling. His legal career is modest at best. His
    ideas are ludicrous.''
        CIA Director Gina Haspel threatened to resign after
    President Trump proposed making Mr. Patel CIA Deputy Director.
        Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Mr. Patel lied about
    whether Nigeria had approved a hostage rescue operation,
    putting American lives at risk. But Mr. Patel would have us
    believe that all of these public servants, all Republicans, all
    from the first Trump administration, and apparently anyone else
    who's critical of him, are nothing but government gangsters and
    deep state members. Many of them have made his list of enemies.
        Just this week, CNN reported that during the Trump
    administration, CIA officials referred Mr. Patel to the Justice
    Department for criminal investigation for sharing classified
    information without authorization. Last week, I asked the
    Justice Department and Intelligence Community for information
    on any criminal referrals relating to misconduct by Mr. Patel.
    I have yet to receive a response.
        Mr. Patel's record is clear. He traffics in debunked
    conspiracy theories that serve or benefit his political
    beliefs. Let's start with January 6--and he dedicates a whole
    chapter in this book on January 6. That's something that each
    and every one of us as witnesses to January 6 have our own view
    of.
        I'll be grateful always to the Capitol Hill police officers
    who risked their lives defending me, Members of Congress, and
    visitors to the United States Capitol on that day. Mr. Patel
    posted----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. On social media, quote,
    ``January 6, never an insurrection. Cowards in uniform
    exposed,'' end of quote. Let me repeat that: ``Cowards in
    uniform exposed.'' Who was in the Capitol building on January 6
    in a uniform? The Capitol police were. Do you think they were
    cowards? Many of them risked their lives, and some gave their
    lives, in defense of this building. How about the DC police who
    were here, as well? They were in uniform--``cowards'' risking
    their lives, as well, some of them being battered and beaten by
    these mobsters that came on into the Capitol. And Mr. Patel
    claims that the FBI agency he aspires to lead--get this now--
    was planning January 6 for a year. He says, ``The FBI was
    planning January 6 for a year''--that's a quote.
        Mr. Patel has gone so far as to co-produce and sell musical
    recordings of a song performed by January 6 rioters in jail--
    rioters who violently assaulted police officers. He has
    described this January 6 choir as, quote, ``political
    prisoners''--``political prisoners''--but at least six members
    pleaded guilty to assaulting law enforcement officers on
    January 6. All six have now been pardoned by President Trump.
    Here are some of those people----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Who received blanket clemency
    by President Trump on his first day in office in the second
    term. Julian Khater assaulted Capitol Police officers with
    pepper spray, incapacitating three officers.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin. Ryan Nichols sprayed pepper spray on
    multiple police officers. After the attack, Nichols posted on
    Facebook, and I quote, ``So, yes, I'm calling for violence, and
    I will be violent.''
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin. Jorden Mink struck officers, quote,
    ``aggressively with a long pole.'' He spat at officers and
    threw large items at them.
        Armed with a knife, Ryan Samsel----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Shouted at officers, quote,
    ``You're going to die. Get out of the way.'' Samsel shoved
    officers when they tried to lock the doors to the Senate
    Gallery.
        After breaching the Capitol, James McGrew----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Struck an officer and lunged
    for his baton. McGrew also threw a wooden hand rail with metal
    brackets at officers.
        I want to read a sentence from this book on the January 6
    experience, just to give you an idea of Mr. Patel's take on
    what he calls a haphazard riot. ``By everything we could see,
    the crowd at the Capitol was unarmed or armed only with
    nonlethal objects, like bottles, flagpoles, or bike racks.''
        Mr. Patel has also peddled conspiracy theories for his own
    financial benefit----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Promoting a line of dietary
    supplements that claim to help people detox from COVID-19
    vaccines.
        During my time on this Committee, I was fortunate to get to
    know and worked with former FBI Director Bob Mueller. I met him
    a few days after 9/11. That's when he took over the FBI. I
    trusted him. I worked with him. I did everything I could to
    help him because I believed that the FBI was a critical,
    central agency in restoring America's confidence that we were
    safe.
        Bob Mueller was an extraordinary man. Oh, he was a
    Republican, make no bones about it. He said it and admitted it,
    and I knew it. He comes from the San Francisco area, and when
    he was in college and graduated, a friend of his, a year ahead
    of him, had enlisted in the Marine Corps and was killed in
    Vietnam. Bob was inspired to do the same thing, join up in the
    Marine Corps, and he did, and he was a First Lieutenant in
    Vietnam. He received a Bronze Star with a valor pin, and he
    also received a Purple Heart. He was injured in battle. I read
    about his experience because after he was healed from that
    wound to his leg, he returned to combat. He was just that kind
    of fella.
        Regardless of party, he was a real American. He was a
    longtime Federal prosecutor, a U.S. attorney, the head of the
    DOJ's Criminal Division, and Acting Deputy Attorney General
    before he became head of the FBI. After 9/11, I worked with
    him, and we had a good relationship, a professional
    relationship. We didn't always see eye to eye, but I respected
    him so much for what he had given to this country.
        In his book, Mr. Patel calls Director Bob Mueller, quote,
    ``a swamp creature.'' With all due respect, Mr. Patel, I've not
    worn the uniform of this country, and neither have you. To
    think that you would denigrate Bob Mueller's service to our
    country and call him a ``swamp creature'' is an indication of
    the depths your political views take you.
        The FBI plays a critical role in keeping America safe from
    terrorism, violent crime, and other threats. Our Nation needs
    an FBI Director who understands the gravity of this mission and
    is ready on day one--not someone who is consumed by his own
    personal political grievances. The American people deserve an
    FBI Director focused on keeping our families safe from
    terrorism, drug trafficking, and violent crime--not this
    checklist of grievances we find in this book. Mr. Patel, your
    record makes it clear you're not that person. I yield.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Before I call
    on Senator Tillis, I want to clear up something. The way I see
    it, and I think I'm going invite everybody that it can be
    cleared up, this business about what Mr. Patel said about
    cowards in uniform, it's a mischaracterization of what he
    actually said. So I'm going to invite you to listen to the
    interview Mr. Patel gave that linked to his post to hear what
    he actually said. When he said, ``cowards in uniform,'' he was
    talking about senior Pentagon leadership failing to mobilize
    the National Guard to protect the Capitol. His comments had
    nothing to do with police. Mr. Patel made his comments while
    discussing an article in The New York Times exposing grave
    miscommunication between the Department of Defense and the DC
    National Guard, so I would encourage people to follow up on
    that. Senator Tillis.

             INTRODUCTION OF KASHYAP PRAMOD PATEL, NOMINEE

             TO SERVE AS DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF

               INVESTIGATION, BY HON. THOM TILLIS, A U.S.

                SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Senator Tillis. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
    colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, it's my honor to
    introduce Kash Patel, President Trump's nominee to be FBI
    Director. I've completed due diligence on his life and career,
    and I'm convinced that Kash possesses significant expertise, an
    ironclad commitment to justice, and he's an outstanding choice
    to lead the FBI.
        Kash's parents are Indian immigrants of Gujarati ancestry.
    They're up here in the front row. The Gujarat state is a
    melting pot of religions, including Hinduism, Islam, Jainism,
    with temples, mosques, and other religious sites scattered
    across the state. His father was raised in Uganda, but his
    family had to flee the country to escape repression under Idi
    Amin. His mother was born in Tanzania. They met and married in
    India and, ultimately, made their way to New York City by way
    of Canada, where his parents, along with seven brothers and
    sisters and their spouses, and at least a half a dozen kids,
    lived under the same roof. His parents raised Kash in the Hindu
    faith, and they instilled in him the values of hard work and
    education. Kash is a devout Hindu, and consistent with his
    faith, he's shown respect to people of all faiths.
        Kash attended the University of Richmond where he earned
    his bachelor's degree in criminal justice and history. He went
    to Pace University School of Law where he earned his J.D. and
    an international law certificate from the University College of
    London Faculty of Laws. Kash began his career as a public
    defender in Florida where he led or co-led more than 60 jury
    trials in State and Federal court. Kash clearly demonstrated a
    devotion to upholding the rule of law and defending the rights
    of individuals.
        Kash led the defense of Jose Buitrago in United States v.
    Buitrago, a high-profile case in Florida in 2015. Buitrago was
    one of the Columbia nationals arrested in a major drug bust
    involving Operation BACRIM. Kash and his co-counsel
    successfully argued that key evidence was withheld by the
    prosecution, leading to Buitrago's release. I suspect some of
    Kash's disdain for prosecutorial misconduct stem from this
    experience.
        Kash was hired as a senior counsel on the House Permanent
    Select Subcommittee on Intelligence--Committee, I should say,
    in 2017. He told me he distinctly remembers my friend Trey
    Gowdy's comments shortly after they were introduced. He said,
    in Trey's dialect, ``Kash, Congress is where righteous
    investigations go to die. I hope you're ready.''
        I think Kash was ready, and he went on to establish a solid
    reputation for pursuing the facts. And from there, he held
    senior posts at the NSC, the Department of Defense, and the
    DNI. Since leaving the administration in 2020, Kash has written
    articles and books on national security, law, and governance.
    Through his work as an author, Kash continues to advocate for
    justice and transparency, and to be ever vigilant in defending
    our great democracy and the rule of law.
        Colleagues, I created a Kash bingo card that I have
    available to any of my colleagues who would like it on the
    other side of the aisle. Some may view this as an unserious
    caricature and not appropriate for this Committee. Sadly, I
    consider it a serious caricature of what I expect to be
    witnessed today. I think we'll have words like ``enemies list''
    and ``deep state.'' I've already X'd out four boxes in the
    opening statements alone.
        The fact of the matter is, some people will be here to
    simply substantiate a false narrative. At worse, they may be
    just going through an unfounded litany of quotes and half-
    quotes and half-truths, some of which have already been
    dispelled by the Chairman after the opening statements.
        Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, in my 10 years in the Senate,
    I hope I've established a reputation for being fair, doing my
    homework, and taking tough positions that have been met with
    harsh criticism. Heck, I've even been censured by my entire
    State and 30 counties for taking tough positions--and I stand
    by those decisions today and my decision to support Kash Patel.
    When President Trump announced his intent to nominate Kash, I
    contacted Trey Gowdy, and others who worked with Kash, and they
    gave me glowing recommendations.
        So I called Kash on December the 2d, and I offered to help
    him with his nomination. Since then, we have spent hours
    together--in person and on the phone. I've asked him difficult
    questions, and I've urged him to reach out to Members across
    the aisle. In fact, Kash Patel has met with 60 Members of the
    U.S. Senate--every Member except the last three who were sworn
    in, and the majority of the Members on the other side of the
    dais, and this Committee and Members of the Committee.
        Chair Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, friends, and
    colleagues on the Committee, I've completed my due diligence of
    Kash Patel, and I am honored to provide my strongest
    recommendation for his confirmation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you for that introduction. Before
    I swear you, I want to make clear that before you give your
    statement, if you want to introduce family and friends in the
    audience, you're welcome to do that.
        Would you please stand, and raise your hand.
        [Witness is sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. You may proceed.

                   STATEMENT OF KASHYAP PRAMOD PATEL,

                  NOMINEE TO SERVE AS DIRECTOR OF THE

                    FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

        Mr. Patel. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and
    Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today.
        I must start with a word of prayer for the tragic accident
    that befell our Nation last night, where we lost civilians and
    service members. I pray for their families, I pray for law
    enforcement and military personnel, and I pray for their souls,
    and, hopefully, God will find them peace in the near future.
        I'd like to welcome my father, Pramod, and my mother,
    Anjana, who are sitting here today. They traveled here to get
    here from India. My sister's also here, Nisha. She also
    traversed the oceans just to be with me here today. It means
    the world that you guys are here, Jai Shri Krishna. I wouldn't
    be here today without their guidance, their unwavering support,
    and their relentless love. When President Trump informed me of
    his intention to nominate me as the Director of the FBI, I was
    deeply honored. Sitting here today, I carry not only the dreams
    of my parents, but also the hopes of millions of Americans who
    stand for justice, fairness, and the rule of law. My commitment
    to these principles is deeply rooted in my family's history,
    which has profoundly shaped my world view.
        My father fled Idi Amin's genocidal dictatorship in Uganda,
    where 300,000 men, women, and children were killed based on
    their ethnicity just because they happened to look like me. My
    mother is originally from Tanzania. She studied in India, as
    did my dad, and they were married there. They would later
    immigrate to New York, as the Senator pointed out, where I was
    born, and we were raised in a household of my father's seven
    siblings, their spouses, and at least half a dozen children.
    That's the only way we knew how to do things at the time in the
    70s and the 80s--the Indian way. But we would soon learn the
    American way. These values have shaped and been the driving
    force of my career in 16 years of Government service.
    Protecting the rights of the Constitution is of the utmost
    importance to me and has been every single time I've taken that
    oath of office.
        The recent terrorist attacks in New Orleans tragically
    claimed the lives of 14 innocent Americans and serve as a stark
    reminder that our national security is at threat, both
    internally and externally. The FBI, the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation, and the Department of Justice, where I served,
    play a pivotal role in securing our freedoms and our safeties
    for American citizens. If confirmed as the next FBI Director, I
    will remain focused on the FBI's core mission. That is, to
    investigate fully wherever there is a constitutional and
    factual basis to do so and to never make a prosecutorial
    decision. That is solely the providence of the Department of
    Justice and the Attorney General.
        For the first 8 years after law school, I served as a
    public defender, first for Miami-Dade County and later for the
    Southern District of Florida. During that time, I represented
    some pretty awful human beings charged with some pretty heinous
    crimes. But what I learned there was the core value that has
    been enshrined in me since: that due process must be provided
    without bias to all Americans. And if we cannot provide due
    process to the worst, then there can be no due process for
    anyone, and our constitutional Republic fails. But I battled on
    that hill for that due process.
        I would later serve in the Obama Justice Department as a
    terrorism prosecutor in the National Security Division, where
    we successfully contributed to prosecutions of terrorist
    organizations like al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and others. I was
    honored to receive the 2017 Assistant Attorney General's Award
    from Loretta Lynch for my work in helping the Ugandans bring
    members of al-Shabaab to justice for murdering 74 innocent
    people, including an American. I would also receive the Human
    Intelligence Award from the Intelligence Community for related
    work on that mission.
        My experiences at the National Security Division would
    later be followed by my experiences on the National Security
    Council as senior director for counterterrorism, and later as
    the deputy director of national intelligence responsible for
    the production, creation, and promulgation of the Presidential
    Daily Briefing, our Nation's most sensitive classified
    information and secrets to protect our country. My time in the
    White House was preceded by my time right here in Congress as a
    staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, where I
    spearheaded the investigation that exposed serious FISA--
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--abuses by members of the
    Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    That misconduct eroded the public trust in our FBI.
        The erosion of trust, as Chairman Grassley pointed out, is
    all too low today. Forty percent of Americans have trust in the
    FBI. In order to get it back, there's a twofold track, Senator.
    One, violent crime is exploding in this country, and we cannot
    afford to allow it to run away. We must tackle violent crime.
    Just in 2023 alone, there was a hundred thousand rapes, a
    hundred thousand drug overdoses, and 17,000 homicides. The
    priority of the FBI, if I am confirmed, will be to ensure that
    our communities are protected and safeguarded, and our children
    have parks to play in and not needles to walk over.
        The way we do this, we let good cops be cops. We let law
    enforcement and we provide them with the tools necessary and
    resources they need to get after violent crime. The second way
    we do this, on equal track, is aggressive constitutional
    oversight from Congress. The public trust can only be restored
    if there is full transparency, and I am committed to that full
    transparency. Members of Congress have, unfortunately,
    submitted hundreds of questions that have been unanswered by
    the FBI in recent times. That will not occur, if I am
    confirmed. All appropriate requests for information will be
    responded to expeditiously and fully.
        I'm committed to working alongside the dedicated men and
    women of the FBI. They are warriors of justice, and I will
    always have their backs because they have the backs of the
    American people. I look forward to answering your questions,
    and I want to take a moment to thank my family, my friends,
    people who've traveled here, and my entire team that has made
    this day possible. God bless America, and I look forward to
    your questions.
        Chairman Grassley. Seven minutes first round. Is that
    right? Is it 7 minutes?
        [Voice heard off microphone.] Yes, sir.
        Chairman Grassley. Seven minutes, three minutes the second
    round. Mr. Patel, I'm not going to go through all the things
    that you've done through your career because I said those in my
    opening statements, but Democrats on the Committee say you
    don't have experience. What are you most proud of from your
    career in public service?
        Mr. Patel. Mr. Chairman--Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
    question. It's really humbling to be afforded the opportunity
    to have served this country for 16 years. But I think what I'm
    most proud of is my work in national security, protecting the
    no-fail mission, returning American hostages, killing high-
    value terrorists that brought hate and destruction to our
    shores. I've served that mission in Democratic and Republican
    administrations, and it is the one mission that we cannot fail,
    and it is the one mission where the FBI must play a critical
    role.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. As you well know, and you and I
    discussed this in my office, whistleblowers are critical to
    rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. Their courage to come
    forward and make legally protected disclosures about Government
    wrongdoing benefits the country. I think they're politically--
    they are good American citizens, just want the Government to do
    what it's supposed to do. I think they're treated by
    bureaucracies, not just in the FBI but throughout the
    bureaucracy, like skunks at a picnic. Will you protect
    whistleblowers from retaliation, unlike former Director Wray,
    and promote a culture at the FBI that values whistleblowers'
    important contributions?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I share in your
    beliefs about the importance of whistleblowers.
        Chairman Grassley. So we've spent a lot of taxpayers' money
    ruining whistleblowers. Will you commit to ensuring that no
    taxpayer money will be used to identify and retaliate against
    whistleblowers?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, if I am confirmed, it will not.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. You and I have heard a lot of
    criticism about various statements about January 6. You said,
    quote, ``Those who broke actual laws should be prosecuted,''
    end of quote. But you've also called out the partisan nature of
    prosecutions and compared how the Biden Justice Department
    treated January 6 offenders with how they ignored many other
    crimes. Those include crimes related to illegal immigration, as
    well as riots that took place around the country. So explain
    your position on January 6, to this Committee, and how do you
    respond to critics who say that you're anti-law enforcement?
        Mr. Patel. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the question
    and the opportunity to discuss that. If anyone wants to
    consider me as anti-law enforcement, then look at my 16 years
    in Government service. Whether I was trying 60 jury trials in
    State and Federal court upholding the rights of the indigent
    and breathing life into constitutional due process, or later as
    a national security prosecutor where I served this country and
    overseas, and later when I was a Joint Special Operations
    Command civilian embedded with SEAL Team Six and Delta chasing
    down some of the most high-value target terrorists there are on
    this earth and successfully achieving a mission and state, I
    have always respected law enforcement. I have taken that oath
    and will take that oath again, God willing, to be the next
    Director of the FBI. As for January 6, I have repeatedly,
    often, publicly, and privately said there can never be a
    tolerance for violence against law enforcement, and anyone--
    anyone--that commits an act of violence against law enforcement
    must be investigated, prosecuted, and imprisoned. And on
    January 6, I said the same thing about acts against law
    enforcement.
        The Capitol Police, who I had served with, and when I was
    chief of staff at the Department of Defense, rushing to the aid
    of the Members of this Committee and your colleagues to provide
    the National Guard was my top mission priority--not politics.
    And that is my love of this country, to protect our laws and
    our way of life, and it was no different. If there was any,
    ever corruption, I have been the first to call it out. And I
    will continue to call out corruption in Government service
    because it is a privilege to serve this Nation. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Outside of this Committee and some
    people on this Committee have accused you of promoting the
    QAnon movement. My colleagues have already asked your future
    boss, Ms. Bondi, many questions about this. I think it's easy
    to see these attacks for what they are: guilt by association.
    Are you a follower or promoter of QAnon?
        Mr. Patel. No, Senator. In fact, I have publicly, including
    in the interviews provided to this Committee, rejected outright
    QAnon baseless conspiracy theories or any other baseless
    conspiracy theories. They must be addressed head on with the
    truth and I will continue to do that, and I will always
    continue to support Americans who support law enforcement, our
    military, and want a secure border.
        Chairman Grassley. Over the past 4 years, the FBI and
    Justice Department have weaponized law enforcement toward
    partisan ends. This has affected you personally. You, along
    with even members of my staff, were the victims of FBI
    overreach when they secretly subpoenaed your records during the
    investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. Inspector General
    Horowitz of the Justice Department was right to say actions
    like this have a, quote, unquote, ``chilling effect on
    whistleblowers.'' How do you intend to make sure that this kind
    of misconduct never happens again?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, this may be one of the scenarios that
    most uniquely qualifies me to take command at the FBI. Having
    been the victim of Government overreach and a weaponized system
    of justice and law enforcement, I know what it feels like to
    have the full weight of the United States Government barreling
    down on you. And as the Biden Inspector General determined,
    those activities by the FBI and DOJ were wholly improper and
    not predicated upon law and facts. I will ensure, if confirmed,
    that no American is subjected to that kind of torment, to that
    kind of cost, financially and personally. And most importantly,
    I will make sure that no American is subjected to death
    threats, like I was, and subjected to moving their residences,
    like I was, because of Government overreach, because of leaks
    of information about my personal status. If confirmed as FBI
    Director, Mr. Chairman, you have my commitment that no one in
    this country will feel that pain.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, I woke up
    this morning to National Public Radio, and they had an item on
    there about what has happened to those who were given blanket
    clemency by President Trump. One of these individuals was a man
    named Matthew Huttle. Are you familiar with him?
        Mr. Patel. I'm sorry, what was the last name?
        Senator Durbin. Matthew Huttle.
        Mr. Patel. If you could remind me, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. Well, I was reminded again this morning.
    He's a man who's been found guilty of numerous crimes. The one
    described this morning was an outrageous situation where he
    beat his 3-year-old child to a point where the poor kid
    couldn't even sit down for a week. Mr. Huttle was one of the
    demonstrators who came to the Capitol on January 6. He was
    incarcerated, been charged with and pled guilty to crimes that
    he had committed, violence against police officers. After he
    was released by President Trump, he returned to his home State
    of Indiana.
        A few days later, he was stopped on the road, pulled a gun
    on a policeman. The policeman, a sheriff's deputy, turned, shot
    and killed him. This is not the only instance of a person who
    received President Trump's clemency committing another crime.
    Peter Schwartz was mentioned this morning on the radio: 38
    criminal convictions--38. He'd been sentenced to 14 years in
    prison. He was released because of the President's
    unconditional clemency, which was given to him, as well.
        So I guess my question is this. Was President Donald Trump
    wrong to give blanket clemency to the January 6 defendants?
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Ranking Member. A couple of things on
    that. One, the power of the Presidential pardon is just that,
    the President.
        Senator Durbin. Well, I meant--I concede he has the
    authority. I'm asking, was he wrong to do it?
        Mr. Patel. And as we discussed in our private meeting,
    Senator, I have always rejected any violence against law
    enforcement--and I have--including in that group is
    specifically addressed any violence against law enforcement on
    January 6th. And I do not agree with the commutation of any
    sentence of any individual who committed violence against law
    enforcement.
        Senator Durbin. So do you think that America is safer
    because the 1,600 people have been given an opportunity to come
    out of serving their sentences and live in our communities
    again?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I have not looked at all 1,600
    individual cases. I have always advocated for imprisoning those
    that cause harm to our law enforcement and civilian
    communities. I also believe America is not safer because
    President Biden's commutation of a man who murdered two FBI
    agents--Agents Coler's and Williams' family deserved better
    than to have the man that point-blank range fired a shotgun
    into their heads and murdered them released from prison. So it
    goes both ways.
        Senator Durbin. Leonard Peltier was in prison for 45 years.
    He's 80 years old and he was sentenced to home confinement. So
    he's not free, as you might have just suggested.
        Mr. Patel. He killed two FBI agents.
        Senator Durbin. That's true----
        Mr. Patel. That's unacceptable.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. He did, and he went to prison
    for it and should have. My question to you, though, is do you
    think America is safer because President Trump issued these
    pardons to 1,600 of these criminal defendants--many of whom
    violently assaulted our police in the Capitol?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, America will be safe----
        Senator Durbin. You're not going to answer the----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. When we don't have 200,000 drug
    overdoses in 2 years. America will be safe when we don't have
    50,000--50 homicides in a day.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. So, you just won't answer the
    question.
        Mr. Patel. I am----
        Senator Durbin. I'm going to say----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. Here.
        Senator Durbin. I don't think we're safer when Matthew
    Huttle was sent back to Indiana. I don't think we're safer with
    Peter Schwartz--I could go through a long list of individuals,
    some of whom are wanted in States of Members of this Committee.
    Let me move to another topic if I can. Tell me about your J6
    choir. What is that?
        Mr. Patel. Well, it's not my choir. It's simply a recording
    that was utilized to raise funds for families in need of
    nonviolent offenders.
        Senator Durbin. Who sings on this recording?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. What did you have to do with it?
        Mr. Patel. Simply to raise funds to assist families of
    nonviolent offenders whose kids needed college education
    payments and whose rent needed being paid.
        Senator Durbin. My understanding is that the performers on
    this J6 choir were the rioters who are in prison.
        Mr. Patel. I'm not aware of that, sir. I didn't have
    anything to do with the recording.
        Senator Durbin. You weren't aware of who made the
    recording?
        Mr. Patel. No, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. That's interesting. Did you receive any
    money for selling copies of that music or that recording?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely not.
        Senator Durbin. You do have a foundation, though. Do you
    not?
        Mr. Patel. I'm very proud of the Kash Foundation and the
    $1.3 million we've given to families in need across this
    country, including active duty service members, police officers
    putting kids in college, and helping people in disaster relief
    areas rebuild their homes and their communities.
        Senator Durbin. One and OA LLC, are you familiar with that?
        Mr. Patel. Sorry?
        Senator Durbin. One and OA LLC.
        Mr. Patel. I believe, Senator, you're referring to the LLC
    that one of the individuals has his private business with.
        Senator Durbin. Is it part of the Kash Foundation in any
    way?
        Mr. Patel. Only in that one of the members of the board has
    that LLC for his outside business.
        Senator Durbin. Andrew Ellis?
        Mr. Patel. I believe that's his name. Yes.
        Senator Durbin. Yes. Do you know how much was paid to him
    from your charitable work?
        Mr. Patel. Yes. Like any other charity, we had to go out
    and fundraise--something I'm sure every Member of this
    Committee is familiar with. And we used digital marketing
    campaigns, and I believe we paid a digital marketing company
    through One and OA LLC a quarter million dollars to raise
    $500,000, which we gave away to families in need, like when
    hurricanes struck Florida, Texas, and North Carolina.
        Senator Durbin. We will be going through the details of
    your foundation and the expenditures with the questions for
    record that the Chairman has mentioned----
        Mr. Patel. I look forward to it.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. If you have a chance to answer
    those under oath.
        Mr. Patel, you frequently associated with and sometimes
    praised extremist figures with well-documented histories of
    racism, antisemitism, conspiracies, and the like. In September
    2023, you appeared with Laura Loomer at an event promoting your
    book.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin. This one here--you shared a photo of
    yourself and Loomer in which you held her book and she held
    yours. Just a few months before this event, Ms. Loomer posted
    on X that the September 11 terrorist attacks were, quote, ``an
    inside job.'' Around that time, she accused Florida's First
    Lady Casey DeSantis of exaggerating her cancer diagnosis to
    gain voter sympathy. A number of my Republican colleagues on
    this Committee have criticized Ms. Loomer's extremism. One of
    my colleagues described her as a, quote, ``crazy conspiracy
    theorist who regularly utters disgusting garbage.'' Another
    called her ``really toxic.'' Given all this, why did you
    associate with Ms. Loomer?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, as you can see, I took a photograph
    with an individual who showed up at a book event. I don't
    believe I'm guilty by association, and I certainly don't
    believe that an individual who is the first minority to serve
    as the deputy director of national intelligence for this
    country is a racist in any way. And I detest any conjecture to
    the contrary.
        Senator Durbin. You familiar with a Stu Peters? Does that
    name ring a bell?
        Mr. Patel. I'm sorry, what?
        Senator Durbin. Are you familiar with Mr. Stu Peters?
        Mr. Patel. Not off the top of my head.
        Senator Durbin. You made eight separate appearances on his
    podcast. He promoted outrageous conspiracy theories and worked
    with a prominent neo-Nazi. There are more--Ted Nugent, it goes
    on. The list goes on. I'm just asking, when it comes to your
    association with individuals, why are so many of them in this
    category?
        Mr. Patel. My association, as you loosely define it, is by
    appearing in media over a thousand times to take on people who
    are putting on conspiratorial theories and to devour them of
    their false impressions and to talk to them about the truth.
    That is something that I will always continue to fight for,
    Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you. We'll eventually talk about the
    FBI.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Graham. Because that's the job you're up here for.
    Right? Have you ever been subject to racism as an individual?
        Mr. Patel. Unfortunately, Senator, yes. I don't want to get
    into those details with my family here.
        Senator Graham. Oh, let's get into a few of them. Tell me
    about it.
        Mr. Patel. Well, if you look at the record from January 6,
    where I testified before that Committee, because of my personal
    information being released by Congress, I was subjected to a
    direct and significant threat on my life, and I put that
    information in the record. I had to move.
        Senator Graham. What are----
        Mr. Patel. In that threat----
        Senator Graham. Go ahead.
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. I was called ``a detestable''--and
    apologize if I don't get it all right, but it's in the record--
    ``a detestable sand nigger who had no right being in this
    country.'' ``You should go back to where you came from.'' ``You
    belong with your terrorist home friends.'' That's what was sent
    to me. That's just a piece of it. But that's nothing compared
    to what the men and women in law enforcement face every day.
    And that's why they have my support.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Growing up, were you subject to
    racism?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Now, I think the reason you're here
    has a lot to do with your work on Crossfire Hurricane. Are you
    familiar with that FBI operation?
        Mr. Patel. I am, Senator.
        Senator Graham. So Senator Durbin mentioned the Church
    Report and the history of abuse, but he failed to mention
    Crossfire Hurricane. He failed to mention the Horowitz Report.
    Wonder why? If you're waiting for these guys over here to
    figure that out, you're going to die waiting. So this is the
    Nunes memo. You worked for Mr. Nunes over on the----
        Mr. Patel. Sorry?
        Senator Graham [continuing]. House side, Devin Nunes?
        Mr. Patel. Sorry?
        Senator Graham. Are you familiar with this memo by the
    ``Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses''----
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. ``At the Department of
    Justice? ''
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely.
        Senator Graham. Did you help write this memo?
        Mr. Patel. I did, as a staffer.
        Senator Graham. Okay. I'm going to put this in the record.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Graham. In this memo, you kind of dissected the
    abuses of Crossfire Hurricane. Right?
        Mr. Patel. I did, Senator.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. And the Mueller investigation?
    So the Crossfire Hurricane investigators, two of them were
    Strzok and Page. Are you familiar with them?
        Mr. Patel. I am, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Okay. It was opened up on July the 31st,
    2016, and here's what Strzok said: ``And, damn, this feels
    momentous because this matters. The other one did, too, but
    that was to ensure we didn't F-something up. This matters
    because this matters. So super glad to be on this voyage with
    you.'' That's to Page. And Page responds a couple of months
    later, ``He's not ever going to be President. Right?''--talking
    about Trump. Strzok: ``No. No, he won't. We'll stop it.'' Is it
    fair to say that the people in charge of investigating
    Crossfire Hurricane hated Trump's guts?
        Mr. Patel. Well, you don't have to take my word for it.
    That statement, along with the statements from the sources
    during the operation----
        Senator Graham. Are those days over in the FBI, you hope?
        Mr. Patel. Well, if they're not, they will be.
        Senator Graham. Okay, good. You know who Carter Page was?
        Mr. Patel. I do, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Do you know that the FBI secured warrants
    against him on four different occasions?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Do you know that the information that they
    relied upon came from the Steele dossier?
        Mr. Patel. I do.
        Senator Graham. Was it you that were able to find out that
    the Steele dossier was a bunch of crap?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator. We followed the money, and we
    exposed the fraud that was----
        Senator Graham. And--and----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. The Steele dossier.
        Senator Graham. And the primary sub-source was Igor
    Danchenko. Right?
        Mr. Patel. That's correct, Senator.
        Senator Graham. And he was actually a Russian analyst.
        Mr. Patel. That's right.
        Senator Graham. Are you aware that in January he told the
    FBI that--let's see, what did he tell the FBI--``Steele had no
    proof to support the statements. Then it was just talk.'' The
    primary sub-source explained to the FBI that his information
    came from word of mouth and hearsay, conversations he had with
    friends over beers, and some of the information were statements
    he heard made in jest--and he told the FBI this in January----
        Mr. Patel. That's right.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. Of 2017. And they got two more
    warrants after that.
        Mr. Patel. That's correct.
        Senator Graham. Are you aware that the FBI had volumes of
    information that the Steele dossier was a bunch of bullshit,
    and nobody ever told anybody at the top?
        Mr. Patel. I am, sir. We exposed it.
        Senator Graham. Or they lied about being told.
        Mr. Patel. That's correct.
        Senator Graham. So are you aware of the fact that the FISA
    Court rebuked the FBI? Are you aware of the fact that an FBI
    lawyer went to jail because he misled the court by manipulating
    an email from the CIA?
        Mr. Patel. I am.
        Senator Graham. Do you believe that Crossfire Hurricane was
    one of the most disgusting episodes in FBI history of a corrupt
    investigation led by corrupt people who wanted to take Donald
    Trump down?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir.
        Senator Graham. Do you think that's why you're in this
    chair today, to fix that?
        Mr. Patel. I think that's the big question.
        Senator Graham. Without Crossfire Hurricane, this guy
    wouldn't be here. And my friends on the other side, like
    pulling teeth. The Horowitz investigation, the Inspector
    General labeled this ``fraudulent at its core,'' ``mismanaged
    at its core,'' ``running stop signs.'' ``At every turn, they
    went forward when they should've stopped.'' The Durham Report
    said it was obviously politically motivated. FBI agents were
    telling anybody and everybody that would listen, this is not
    reliable, this is not trustworthy, but they plowed on. And
    because of you and Trey Gowdy and others, we now know about
    this. Everybody who signed the warrant, under questioning by
    me, said if they knew then what they know now, they wouldn't
    have sign the warrant. Comey said that. Yates said that.
    Rosenstein said that.
        The reason you're here is because most of the public,
    almost every Republican believes that the FBI has been used
    continuously in a political fashion, ignoring evidence, making
    up evidence, lying to get Donald Trump. And when it came to the
    Hunter Biden laptop, they told every social media outlet in
    October 2020, oh, that's Russian disinformation. That was B.S.,
    too. Right before the election, the FBI intervened to shut
    reporting on the Hunter laptop down as being Russian
    misinformation, according to Zuckerberg. Do you promise all of
    us those days are over at the FBI?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator, they are.
        Senator Graham. Are you proud of what you did to find all
    that?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely.
        Senator Graham. Do you think that's why you're here today,
    is to make sure that never happens again?
        Mr. Patel. The American people deserve just that.
        Senator Graham. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Patel. I
    remember January 6: Colleagues running through our halls to
    flee the mob, colleagues shouting that rioters should be shot,
    us returning to our constitutional business through hallways
    cleared for us by automatic weapons-carrying SWAT teams. None
    of you, none of us said those violent rioters should be
    pardoned. A Republican colleague said such pardons would be
    hard to believe--even absurd. Your former colleague, J.D.
    Vance, said the violent rioters should not be pardoned. Even
    Jim Jordan said pardons would, and I quote, ``focus on all the
    people who didn't commit any violence.'' Well, Trump pardoned
    all of them. And there's a lesson in that. Every time you think
    Trump would never go that far, rethink that. We all seem to
    agree that violence against police is unacceptable, yet more
    than 600 people who physically attacked Capitol Police officers
    were just put back on the street--part of a 1,500 personal
    Trump army now out there with people who have proven themselves
    willing to do violence on Trump's call. In only 10 days, some
    are already back committing crimes.
        We've also tried as a Committee, together, to address the
    dangers of illicit drug sales over the internet. And I assume
    we're all against murder for hire. But Trump also just pardoned
    a dark web operator sentenced to life in prison for trafficking
    illegal drugs online and accused of soliciting murders for
    hire. Those pardons, as Mr. Patel has said, are a mistake, but
    they are also a signal that we are entering a strange and
    dangerous time. That is the context for today's hearing.
    Warnings that the FBI could become Trump's enforcer, use the
    powers of law enforcement to stifle speech and dissent, punish
    political rivals of either party, and hand out free passes,
    get-out-of-jail-free cards to violent supporters are warnings
    we should heed.
        Here are some warnings of this nominee's Trump
    administration colleagues. Former Attorney General Bill Barr
    said, ``This nominee has virtually no experience that would
    qualify him to serve at the highest level of the world's
    preeminent law enforcement agency,'' and, quote, ``We would
    never be able to command the respect necessary to run the day-
    to-day operations of the Bureau.'' That's for the Deputy
    position. Former CIA Director Gina Haspel was reported
    threatening to resign rather than have this nominee serve under
    her. John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser,
    said, ``I didn't think he was qualified. I was forced to hire
    him.'' Trump's Deputy National Security Advisor, the nominee's
    former supervisor, said, ``His ideas are ludicrous. He's
    absolutely unqualified for this job. He's untrustworthy. And
    it's an absolute disgrace to even consider an individual of
    this nature.'' That's from Republican appointees who worked
    with him. And here's what this nominee himself has said about
    using his office to prosecute journalists: ``We will go out and
    find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the
    media. We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally
    or civilly.'' Is that a correct quotation, Mr. Patel?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, that's a partial quotation.
        Senator Whitehouse. But it's correct?
        Mr. Patel. In part.
        Senator Whitehouse. Regarding his publication of his
    enemies list, Mr. Patel proclaimed, ``The manhunt starts
    tomorrow,'' and reposted a video depicting him taking a
    chainsaw to his political enemies.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Whitehouse. Is that you, Kash Patel, re-truthed
    reposting that at the top of that page?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I had nothing to do with the creation
    of that meme.
        Senator Whitehouse. Is that you reposting it? Was my
    question.
        Mr. Patel. And that's me at the top.
        Senator Whitehouse. You said FBI agents were responsible
    for the violence on January 6, and I quote you here----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. ``Beyond a reasonable
    doubt.'' Is that what you said?
        Mr. Patel. That's completely incorrect, and I appreciate
    the opportunity to address that.
        Senator Whitehouse. I'll give you opportunity in writing.
    But this is my time now.
        Mr. Patel. Have at it.
        Senator Whitehouse. An Inspector--Attorney General
    investigation found that that was false.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Whitehouse. And you said we should impeach judges
    who rule against Donald Trump, who are, in your words,
    ``political terrorists.''
        When this nominee tries to explain all this away, keep one
    thing in mind.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Whitehouse. He's testified under oath before a
    Colorado judge who presided over a Trump case in which he was a
    witness, and the judge found, and I'm quoting here, ``He was
    not a credible witness. His testimony is not only illogical,
    but completely devoid of any evidence in the record.'' That's
    from a judge.
        This is a dangerous time, and I ask all my colleagues to
    consider whether these plain comments by this person and by his
    own Trump administration colleagues should be given a blind
    eye--just overlooked, or whether, like the warnings of
    pardoning violent January 6 offenders, they're warnings to be
    heeded. There is an unfathomable difference between a seeming
    facade being constructed around this nominee here today and
    what he has actually done and said in real life when left to
    his own devices. Conduct shows character. And if you look at
    history, you see the danger of security chiefs in authoritarian
    regimes becoming the tools of political power. The
    characteristics that they often show are that they are
    vengeful, that they are grandiose, that they are intemperate,
    that they are partisan and blindly loyal, and that they are
    servile and won't say ``no.'' I'm afraid that the history of
    this nominee's conduct raises those warnings. And I yield my 1
    second back.
        Chairman Grassley. Before Senator Cornyn, you said you'd
    like to explain something. I forget the point he made. You can
    do that now if you want to.
        Mr. Patel. Simply this, Senator. In the collective, all of
    those statements are taken out of grotesque context. And anyone
    that thinks my 16 years of service isn't exemplary on how I
    would proceed, if confirmed as FBI, is intentionally putting
    false information into the public ether and creating more
    public discourse. The only thing that will matter, if I'm
    confirmed as the Director of the FBI, is a de-weaponized,
    depoliticized system of law enforcement, completely devoted to
    rigorous obedience of the Constitution and a singular standard
    of justice.
        Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Cornyn, I'd
    like to say that we've heard about the January 6 pardons. I
    think it's important that we remind people at the same time of
    some pardons by the previous administration. Thomas Sanders, a
    kidnapper who murdered a 12-year-old girl, named Lexis, and her
    mother, Suellen Roberts; Adrian Peeler, a Connecticut drug
    kingpin who was convicted in the death of an 8-year-old boy and
    his mother; Leonard Peltier, that's already been referred to,
    that murdered two FBI agents, and even Director Wray--at that
    time former Director Wray, said that that shouldn't have
    happened; and Judge Michael Conahan, who took kickbacks for
    wrongly sending juveniles to for-profit detention centers; and
    Alex Saab, who laundered illicit proceeds for narcotics
    terrorist Nicolas Maduro, and was a key connection between
    Venezuela and Iran, and five family members of his own family.
    President Biden did that. Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Welcome, Mr. Patel. Do you believe America
    is an exceptional Nation?
        Mr. Patel. It's the greatest Nation.
        Senator Cornyn. Your family went through a lot to get here.
        Mr. Patel. They sure did.
        Senator Cornyn. And your life story is, I think, a great
    example of people pursuing the American Dream. Do you believe
    what--a large part of what makes America an exceptional Nation
    is the rule of law?
        Mr. Patel. It is one of the fundamental precepts that
    determines that.
        Senator Cornyn. And why is that?
        Mr. Patel. Because without a singular application of a rule
    of law, we go back to the Uganda that my father fled and Idi
    Amin.
        Senator Cornyn. I believe that the two most important
    institutions in America to preserve and protect and enforce the
    rule of law are the FBI and the Department of Justice. And the
    sort of politicalization that Senator Graham and others have
    already talked about during the Crossfire Hurricane
    investigation or a project of James Comey at the FBI, and the
    abuse of intelligence tools like----
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Cornyn [continuing]. Like Title I of Section 702--
    --
        Mr. Patel. Yep.
        Senator Cornyn [continuing]. Are a betrayal of American
    values and adherence to the rule of law. And I think your
    biggest task is going to be, along with Pam Bondi at the Office
    of the Attorney General, is to restore the rule of law to the
    Department of Justice and the FBI. Are you willing to do that?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Cornyn. Without regard to partisan affiliation or
    politics?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely.
        Senator Cornyn. Do you believe President Trump, as the
    Commander-in-Chief, needs access to all of the lawfully
    available intelligence that can be collected by the American
    Intelligence Community in order to inform him so that he can
    make good judgments as Commander-in-Chief to assure the safety
    and security of the American people?
        Mr. Patel. Having been responsible for the collection and
    predication and promulgation of that intelligence, I firmly
    believe he, and every President, must have it.
        Senator Cornyn. And you--so you would not support any
    impractical or perhaps immaterial or unworkable ways to inhibit
    the flow of that information to President Trump?
        Mr. Patel. No, I would not.
        Senator Cornyn. So let me just ask you. You and I have
    talked about this a number of times, and this has come up
    before in a number of different contexts. But as I've always
    said, I think Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act is the most important law that most Americans
    have never heard of.
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Cornyn. But when I was questioning my fellow Texan,
    John Ratcliffe, who now has been confirmed as the Director of
    the CIA, about this, we talked about some of the reforms that
    have been made to Section 702 over the years. This has been an
    ongoing conversation here in Congress.
        [Poster is displayed and appears as a submission for the
    record.]
        Senator Cornyn. People like my colleague here, Senator Lee,
    and others have proposed reforms, which, I think, have gone a
    long way to help protect the privacy rights of American
    citizens. But let me just point out some of the improvements
    that have been made over the years. This is not the same 702
    that was in effect during President Trump's first term. These
    are a number of things that we did together on a bipartisan
    basis to make sure that the balance between the national
    security interests of the American people and the privacy and
    constitutional rights of American citizens were protected. Do
    you agree with that?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator, I do.
        Senator Cornyn. And I think Senator Tillis, with his
    typical outstanding graphics, has a wonderful handout which
    lays all of that out. But one of the things that's come up, and
    we've discussed this, is the idea that in order to query
    lawfully collected intelligence under Section 702, that
    somehow, if a U.S. person's name is involved, that a warrant
    would be required. Now, you're a lawyer who's represented
    defendants as a public defender.
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Cornyn. You understand what probable cause is
    required, what sort of evidence is required to be produced a
    judge in order to get a warrant. Do you believe a warrant
    requirement is a practical and workable, or even a necessary
    element of 702?
        Mr. Patel. If I may just give some context on that,
    Senator. Having a background not only utilizing FISA and 702 as
    a national security prosecutor but as a civilian at JSOC and
    later as an intelligence official and the deputy director of
    national intelligence, 702 collection formulates over 45
    percent of the Presidential Daily Briefing that you referred to
    earlier.
        Senator Cornyn. I actually have heard it's as high as 60
    percent.
        Mr. Patel. It can. It can.
        Senator Cornyn. It's a lot.
        Mr. Patel. It's a lot. And the issue for me is not with
    FISA and 702. The issue has been those that have been in
    Government service and abused it in the past. And so we must
    work with Congress to provide the protections necessary for
    American citizens. Dealing with these matters, including
    hostage rescue operations in real time, which we use FISA
    collection to find and save American hostages, having a warrant
    requirement to go through that information in real time is just
    not comparative with the requirement to protect American
    citizenry. I'm all open to working with Congress on finding a
    better way forward, but right now, these improvements that
    you've made go a long way.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, and Director Ratcliffe said that he
    did not believe that, given the context of 702 collection,
    where a foreign target----
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Cornyn [continuing]. Communicates with a U.S.
    person, that there'd be sufficient evidence to go to the
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or any other court to
    demonstrate probable cause. Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Patel. Yes. Just in real time, Senator--excuse me--it's
    almost impossible to make that function and serve the national
    no-fail mission.
        Senator Cornyn. I think you hit the nail on the head when
    you point out the lack of trust. Any of these tools can be
    abused----
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Cornyn [continuing]. By people who are willing to
    break the law, or abuse these tools, or violate the public
    trust. Director Ratcliffe again, used, I thought, a helpful
    analogy. I'll see if you agree with it. He said the knives in
    your kitchen have a very useful and beneficial purpose, but
    they, too, can be misused for--do you agree with that?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Cornyn. And similarly, do you agree that tools like
    Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act can be
    used appropriately to protect national security, but they can
    also be abused by people who are willing to cross a line they
    should not cross?
        Mr. Patel. They're both true, and that's why we need to
    work together to make sure Americans have trust again in these
    surveillance measures that we utilize to protect our country.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Patel, I think you know that I have great respect for the men
    and women of the FBI--their mission: fidelity, bravery,
    integrity. I believe they deserve a Director who respects their
    work and sacrifices, and they deserve a Director who is focused
    on their mission. This is not about bingo cards or games. This
    is not about revenge. This is about the safety of our country
    and the people that work in the FBI. And the FBI runs on facts.
    It runs on truth. Truth matters, and without truth, the whole
    system breaks down. You said that ``Donald Trump has every
    right to tell the world that in 2020, 2016, and every other
    election in between was rigged by our Government because they
    were.'' Yes or no--did you say that?
        Mr. Patel. I don't have that statement in front of me,
    but----
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. That was from August 27, 2023,
    ThriveTime Show. I'll put it on the record.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Klobuchar. ``These claims made in that statement
    were rejected by courts including by Republican judges. Is that
    correct? ''
        Mr. Patel. I don't have enough of the facts in front of me
    to make that assessment.
        Senator Klobuchar. I will put that statement on the record,
    but I think everyone in this Committee, including the
    Republican Members, knows that these statements were rejected
    by a court.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Klobuchar. You were asked about the police officers
    in the Capitol who testified in the January 6 hearings, and you
    accused them of lying. Is that correct or not correct?
        Mr. Patel. I don't think that's accurate.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Joe Pags' podcast, March 2024.
    We'll put it on the record.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Klobuchar. I was there. The police officers were
    heroes that day.
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Klobuchar. Did you post on your personal social
    media account in May of 2024, ``January 6, never an
    insurrection. Cowards in uniforms exposed. They broke the chain
    of command? ''
        Mr. Patel. I believe you're referencing a post that was
    shown in part earlier. I don't have it in front of me.
        Senator Klobuchar. You posted it--and it was on your
    account, and we will, again, put that out there, once more as
    we go on. I don't want to lose any more time on this. But every
    one of these, there's a record of it, and you haven't answered.
        You promoted a COVID vaccine reversal or detox supplement.
    One scientist said, I quote, ``None of these substances in any
    form would minimize side effects from a COVID-19 vaccine''--
    that is preying on innocent people. Did you perform clinical
    trials before you made that claim?
        Mr. Patel. I'm not a doctor, so no.
        Senator Klobuchar. But you did promote this supplement and
    told people that it would reverse--or mitigate the side effects
    from the COVID vaccine.
        Mr. Patel. Did I give people an opportunity to make an
    independent choice for what's best for their families? Yes.
        Senator Klobuchar. You did that last year. Correct?
        Mr. Patel. I don't have it in front of me, again, Senator.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Patel, the FBI tackles some of the
    most complex threats that we face: terrorists, hostile foreign
    powers, violent gangs, fentanyl, criminal organizations. Your
    mission, though, has been to go after people. I've looked at
    it. I've read this stuff. Yes or no, ``When Trump wins''--did
    you say this, ``When Trump wins in 2024 and is in power in
    2025, we can prosecute them, [referring to Justice Department
    officials] for an actual RICO statute violation for criminally
    organizing the United States Government to break the law to rig
    Presidential elections.'' Did you say that? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel. Again, Senator, you're reading a partial
    statement, so I'm unable to fully respond.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Again, we'll put it on the
    record--X22 Report podcast. That is from--I'll get you the
    date--about a year ago.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Klobuchar. One of the names on your list was Bill
    Barr, you--Chairman Grassley has called him ``one of the most
    capable Cabinet officials I've ever been able to vote for.''
    Senator Graham has said, ``I have nothing but total respect and
    admiration for the job done by William Barr as Attorney General
    of the United States.'' Is Bill Barr on your list of whatever
    you want to call them--you know, been referred to as an enemies
    list, you've called them deep state--after serving his country
    as the Attorney General of the United States? Is he on your
    list because of a personal vendetta?
        Mr. Patel. Well, it's not whatever we want to call it,
    Senator, with all due respect. It's not an enemies list. That
    is a total mischaracterization----
        Senator Klobuchar. I ask you----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. And----
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. I actually used the words
    you used for the list, which was deep state. Right? That's what
    you put at the top----
        Mr. Patel. It is a glossary in the back----
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. Against the Attorney
    General of the United States? Is it because of a personal
    vendetta that he's on the list? You're under oath.
        Mr. Patel. I have no personal vendetta against Bill.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. He said about you, ``would never
    be able to command the respect necessary to run the day-to-day
    operations of the Bureau.'' That was actually in writing, in
    his book. ``He had virtually''--about you--``no experience that
    would qualify you to serve at the highest level of the world's
    preeminent law enforcement agency, and that your appointment as
    noted by Senator Durbin as Deputy Director to the FBI would
    happen over his dead body.'' Is it, yes or no, why you would
    put him on the list of deep state as a former Attorney
    General--Trump Attorney General of the United States because he
    wouldn't break the law for Donald Trump? Is that why?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely not.
        Senator Klobuchar. As you know, he repeatedly told the
    President in no uncertain terms that he did not see evidence of
    fraud that would've affected the outcome of the election. Did
    you say in February of 2021 that, ``The election stuff was
    never my job, and I stayed out of that stuff? ''
        Mr. Patel. Again, I don't know what comment you're
    referring to, but I'm sure you're reading a piece of something.
        Senator Klobuchar. You said it on ``Pushback,'' on a
    podcast. Is it true, though, that in December of 2020, you
    reached out to the Trump Acting Deputy Attorney General and
    asked him to investigate a conspiracy theory claiming that
    people in Italy had used military technology and satellites to
    remotely tamper with voting machines in the U.S. and switch
    votes for Trump--from Trump to Biden? Is that true?
        Mr. Patel. What was the date?
        Senator Klobuchar. That was out of December of 2020.
        Mr. Patel. I was chief of staff to the Department of
    Defense, so I don't believe that's accurate in any way.
        Senator Klobuchar. That came out of testimony before
    Congress. I will give it to you. Have you referred to the media
    as the most powerful enemy of the United States that they have
    ever seen? Is that right?
        Mr. Patel. Again, you're reading a quote. I take----
        Senator Klobuchar. CPAC----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. That you're reading it accurately--
    --
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. 2/23/24, you said, ``We're
    going to come after the people in the media who lied about
    American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig the elections. We're
    going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly.''
    Is that something you said?
        Mr. Patel. That's a partial statement of what I said.
        Senator Klobuchar. Steve Bannon's podcast. You also said
    you had put the entire fake news mafia press corps on your
    list. Is that correct? Is that what you said?
        Mr. Patel. I don't have that in front of me.
        Senator Klobuchar. Benny Johnson's podcast, 8/21/23. You
    have said that the FBI, including today, you said that they
    remain utterly corrupt. This is an agency with agents who have
    taken down terrorists, taken down bank robbers, taken down
    crime, and you wrote that, ``The FBI has become so thoroughly
    compromised that it will remain a threat to the people unless
    drastic measures are taken.'' Do you know that under Chris
    Wray's leadership--he took over at a very difficult time--we
    all know that, appointed by President Trump--that during his
    tenure the applications to the FBI has, in fact, tripled. Do
    you think people would be applying to that agency, like, in
    those numbers if they thought it was so corrupt?
        Mr. Patel. American public's trust in it is at 40 percent.
    That's an all-time low.
        Senator Klobuchar. Did you say that the FBI headquarters
    should be shut down and reopened as a museum of the deep state?
        Mr. Patel. Mr. Chairman, are we allowed to go an extra
    time?
        Chairman Grassley. Let's see. You get a second round.
    Before I call on Senator Lee----
        Senator Klobuchar. Could he just answer the question if he
    said that the FBI headquarters, where they investigate
    cybercrime and terrorism, should be shut down and opened as a
    deep state----
        Mr. Tillis. Mr. Chair?
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. As a museum? Did he say
    that the headquarters should be shut down?
        Mr. Tillis. Mr. Chair?
        Senator Klobuchar. I deserve an answer to that question.
        Chairman Grassley. I guess he's----
        Senator Klobuchar. He is asking to be head of the FBI, and
    he said that their headquarters should be shut down.
        Mr. Tillis. Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry----
        Chairman Grassley. You got anything you want to say, Mr.
    Patel--before I go on to Senator Lee?
        Mr. Patel. Simply this. If the best attacks on me are going
    to be false accusations and grotesque mischaracterizations, the
    only thing this body is doing is defeating the credibility of
    the men and women at the FBI. I stood with them here in this
    country. In every theater of war we have, I was on the ground
    in service of this Nation. And any accusations leveled against
    me that I would somehow put political bias before the
    Constitution are grotesquely unfair. And I will have you
    reminded that I have been endorsed by over 300,000 law
    enforcement officers to become the next Director of the FBI.
    Let's ask them.
        Mr. Tillis. Mr. Chair?
        Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Chairman, I am quoting his own
    words----
        Chairman Grassley. Alarm.
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. From September of----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Chairman Grassley. Alarm.
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. 2024----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. It is his own words. It is
    not some conspiracy. It is what Mr. Patel actually said
    himself. Facts matter.
        Chairman Grassley. You forget that you had 3 minutes in the
    next round to say what you just said.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay, I'll say them again.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Before I call Lee----
        Mr. Tillis. Mr. Chair, just parliamentary inquiry, and it
    was on time--it wasn't disputing any of the debate. But I
    intend to keep to my 7 minutes, and I appreciate you keeping
    everyone to it. If we go over, can we have that decrement
    against the time in the second round--if a Member goes over?
        Chairman Grassley. I----
        Mr. Tillis. That was actually 10 minutes, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Grassley [continuing]. I'm not sure that I want
    to. Sometimes it's faster to get things done here, just letting
    people shout, and then it does shut them up, but----
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Tillis. You're a wise man, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Before we--before we----
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Grassley. Before we go to Lee----
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Grassley. Yes. What do you want?
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. I love this guy. Mr. Chairman, I'm like
    Senator Tillis. I mean, if we're going to start this, I don't--
    I want an extra 3 minutes.
        Chairman Grassley. Well, I'm not----
        Senator Kennedy. Now, my friend, Senator Klobuchar----
        Chairman Grassley [continuing]. I'm not----
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Went 3 minutes over.
        Chairman Grassley. So here, what you're saying is the
    Chairman wasn't a very good Chairman by not shutting her up,
    but I've gone through this before, and I think I know how to
    handle it and get----
        Senator Kennedy. Well, I think--I think you're a star-
    spangled, awesome Chairman. I just want to say that for the
    record. But if you're going to let somebody over there go 3
    minutes over, I want my extra 3 minutes.
        Chairman Grassley. Well, let's see, let's see if it's
    abused by anybody else before we make that decision.
        Senator Kennedy. I'm just telling you, I'm going to abuse
    it.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Grassley. Well, I'm not going to let you abuse it.
    Before I----
        Senator Kennedy. You're a good man, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley [continuing]. Before I go to Lee, I want
    to put a statement in the record from 56 former FBI agents,
    wrote to this Committee to support this nominee, quote, ``Never
    has the FBI faced such an urgent and compelling need for
    comprehensive reform as it does today. Mr. Patel has proven he
    possesses the breadth of experience required to address these
    challenges. His leadership, expertise, and vision make him
    uniquely qualified to guide the FBI through this pivotal
    moment. For these reasons, we stand in full support of Kash
    Patel's nomination.'' Any objection? So ordered.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Mr. Lee.
        Senator Lee. Mr. Patel, while we're talking about your
    awards, let's talk about the ``cowards in uniform'' comment for
    a moment. Can we?
        Mr. Patel. Please.
        Senator Lee. Would you like to tell us what that was? Put
    it in context. Help the Committee understand what that was
    about.
        Mr. Patel. I think it's important. Thank you, Senator.
    During that time on January 6, I was serving as chief of staff
    at the Department of Defense, and days prior, we had received
    the authorization from the President to issue the National
    Guard to protect you and your colleagues. But as you know, the
    law requires a request before the deployment of that Guard.
    That request did not come in until the afternoon of January 6.
    Once that request came in, this, unfortunately, as has been
    confirmed by his own testimony, I believe, the Secretary of the
    Army, Ryan McCarthy, failed to immediately deploy the National
    Guard, and instead took a break to speak to media and make
    personal phone calls. That endangered the safety of you and
    your colleagues. And if you look at the Biden Inspector General
    report, we at the Department of Defense authorized the fastest
    cold start of the National Guard since World War II and the
    largest occupation since the American Civil War. And the Biden
    Justice Department said that we, including myself as chief of
    staff, when it came to the deployment and employment of the
    National Guard, acted swiftly and without undue delay.
        Senator Lee. So that's what you were talking about, and
    that's why you had the reference to the UCMJ. Tell us what that
    means.
        Mr. Patel. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is for
    uniformed officers who betray the Code of Justice and also act
    inappropriately. And I thought any delay to have the National
    Guard arrive on scene here must be called out, whether it was a
    fellow Republican or not, especially someone under my auspices
    running the Department of Defense.
        Senator Lee. Okay. So moments ago, when Senator Durbin
    displayed a chart with that quote, there was a reference in
    part of it to the UCMJ. That's what it was referring to?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir.
        Senator Lee. That's--those were the cowards in uniform,
    those people who didn't do what they were supposed to do, and a
    lot of people were put in danger as a result?
        Mr. Patel. That's correct, Senator.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Thank you. That's very good to know. I
    do find it significant that we've heard all kinds of aspersions
    cast in your direction by people who do not know you, by people
    who do not share your worldview, by people who do not share
    your commitment to the Constitution or your commitment to
    public service. I find it astounding that they're willing to
    say this amidst such great ignorance. And I find it equally
    heartening that the 56 former FBI officials who know you best,
    who have worked with you, who actually know who you are, who
    actually share your view of the Constitution, the view that you
    ought to be a law enforcement agency and not a weapon of
    political warfare, these are the people who stand by you. Those
    who cast aspersions don't share those views. Would I be correct
    in surmising that?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir.
        Senator Lee. Let's talk about the Fourth Amendment for a
    moment. The Fourth Amendment tells us that in order for the
    Government to breach your expectation of privacy, relative to
    your person, your home, your papers, they want to search that,
    if they want to seize you, they've got to get a warrant. And
    that warrant has to describe with particularity the persons or
    places to be searched or to be seized, and to connect them up,
    a showing of probable cause.
        Now, in the case of FISA 702, we're dealing with a somewhat
    different universe now. Moments ago, we heard some discussion
    about FISA 702, about suddenly, we've got a different FISA 702
    than what we had when President Trump was last in office. Is
    that true? Because by my count, FISA 702 has not changed
    substantively since President Trump was in office last.
        Mr. Patel. That's correct.
        Senator Lee. Okay. And there was also some back-and-forth
    discussion about FISA 702 and the use of it, and the fact that
    in real time, it might not work to get a warrant. This, in my
    view, misses the point. The concern that the American people
    have with FISA 702 is not about the real-time collection of
    communications regarding foreign targets. The concern is that
    once those communications are stored, you have within them what
    are referred to as incidentally collected communications of
    Americans--text messages, emails, recorded phone calls, and so
    forth.
        If they want to go in and search for someone, let's say
    you--if someone wants to go into one of those databases after
    they've been collected--let's say if you're unwittingly
    communicating with somebody who, unbeknownst to you, happens to
    be an agent of a foreign power or otherwise under surveillance
    under FISA 702--if they wanted to search for you----
        Mr. Patel. Uh-huh.
        Senator Lee [continuing]. They wanted to enter your name,
    your phone number, your email address, or some other personal
    electronic identifier, would they have to get a warrant to do
    that under current law?
        Mr. Patel. Under current law, I believe so, Senator.
        Senator Lee. Under current law, they routinely access that
    without getting a warrant. In order to access it, they've got
    their own internal procedures. They're not supposed to use this
    for light or transient reasons. They're supposed to have a
    perfectly good reason. And yet we found that on hundreds of
    thousands of occasions, they have accessed the private
    communications of Americans, searching for those individual
    Americans by name, by number, by email address, whatever it is,
    without a warrant or anything tantamount to it. On occasion,
    they've even been used for overtly nefarious reasons. One agent
    decided to look in on his father because he suspected his
    father might be having an extramarital affair. On another
    occasion, an agent looked at people who were thinking about
    renting an apartment from him to make sure they were upstanding
    citizens and could be trusted. Are these appropriate uses of
    FISA 702?
        Mr. Patel. As you alluded to the FISA Court, it's not me
    deciding it. The FISA Court put out a report in 2022 or 2023
    where 255,000 illegal and improper queries of American citizens
    had occurred, 255,000 reasons why the American people don't
    trust it. And that's what we must work together, Congress and
    me, if I'm confirmed as FBI Director, to restore that trust and
    protect the mission.
        Senator Lee. Music to my ears because I've been a U.S.
    Senator for 14 years. I've been on this Committee the entire
    time. You are the very first FBI Director or FBI Director
    nominee who, when I've asked about this, hasn't said, oh, don't
    worry about it, we'll handle it okay. We've got good people on
    the inside. We would never breach the trust of the American
    people. Do you know what? They were lying. I was willing to
    believe that they thought they were telling the truth, but they
    were mistaken, but they were lying. Time has told us they were
    lying. You will not lie, and that's why I wholeheartedly
    support you.
        In the closing seconds that I have, I want to add my dismay
    and my disgust for the fact that you've been smeared, you've
    been attacked, you've been associated with racism, with being a
    Nazi. You are none of those things, sir. Just as your father
    lived as a racial minority in Uganda, you've been raised as a
    racial minority in this country, and you've been nothing but a
    patriot. Your commitment to the Constitution, to the rule of
    law and the American people is remarkable, and I'm honored to
    know you, to call you my friend, and to give you my vote. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Mr. Patel, to
    you and your family, congratulations on your nomination. And we
    had a constructive conversation last week. I appreciate your
    taking the time. In particular, a conversation about the
    prosecution of the World Cup bombing in Uganda that took the
    life of a Delawarean--whose family I knew, I found moving. But
    the role you've been nominated for is central, central to our
    security as a Nation, central to the protection of our
    constitutional rights. And I voted to confirm Trump's previous
    FBI Director, Chris Wray. I believe he's lived up to the
    Bureau's motto of serving with fidelity, bravery, and
    integrity. And I also think my vote for him and for many of
    Trump's Cabinet in his first term shows I take my
    constitutional advise and consent role seriously and do not
    reflexively vote against his nominees.
        I look at three factors when I assess a nominee:
    qualifications and experience; policy views and whether they're
    in the best interest of the American people; and character and
    capacity to do the job independently where called for. My
    colleagues have referenced quotes from Attorney General Barr,
    National Security Advisor Bolton. The FBI is enormous: 38,000
    agents, $9 billion budget. I am troubled by your lack of senior
    law enforcement leadership. We disagree on some important
    policy views. But the thing that bothers me the most is a whole
    series of statements you've made in a variety of settings that
    suggest you would struggle to be independent from White House
    direction or control, as has long been the modern history of
    the FBI. Who does the Director of the FBI work for, Mr. Patel?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, thank you for that question. The
    immediate report for the Director of the FBI is into the office
    of the Deputy Attorney General. Then that report is taken into
    the office of the Attorney General and, ultimately, the White
    House and the chain of command there.
        Senator Coons. So the FBI works for the White House?
        Mr. Patel. No, the FBI is a member of the Department of
    Justice and has been the long-standing application.
        Senator Coons. And who does the Department of Justice work
    for?
        Mr. Patel. They're in the executive branch, as all members
    do, at the White House.
        Senator Coons. Attorney General Bondi gave a different
    answer when I asked her the same question, that they work for
    the Constitution and the American people. President Trump's
    made clear in public statements he wants to use the FBI to
    persecute political adversaries. He's publicly said that folks
    ranging from Liz Cheney to Adam Kinzinger to former Vice
    President Harris should be investigated and criminally
    prosecuted. If President Trump were to order you to open an
    investigation into any of these individuals, let's say, Vice
    President Harris, would you?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, this question speaks directly to my
    ability to leave political bias and allow independent behavior
    to be the only guiding light. As a public defender, I learned
    that in the harshest of arenas, and any law enforcement
    investigation, if I'm confirmed at the FBI, will only be
    launched on the following qualification: a factual,
    articulable, legal basis to do so. The President has said
    publicly that he will allow the FBI to remain independent. And
    I have said as much, as well.
        Senator Coons. So if FBI agents brought to you a factual
    legal basis, a predication, and you are about to refer it to a
    prosecutor, and you get a call from the White House saying
    don't proceed, this is a major donor, this is someone close to
    the President, this is inappropriate, what would you do?
        Mr. Patel. Simple. I think you answered it partially in
    your question. The line agents, the brick agents who are
    trained to bring investigations on behalf of the FBI, will make
    that decision-making process, and they will only have my full
    support so long as it upholds absolutely every value of the
    Constitution--and that's it.
        Senator Coons. So, your predecessor--I went back and looked
    and I asked the same questions of Director Comey and Director
    Wray. Director Wray, quoting former Attorney General Bell,
    said, ``You should be willing to resign, if necessary, over
    conduct, if you're pressed to engage in it, that's unethical,
    illegal, or unconstitutional.'' If pressed by the President,
    would you resign?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, my answer is simply I would never do
    anything unconstitutional or unlawful, and I never have in my
    16 years of Government service.
        Senator Coons. Would you be willing to resign the post of
    FBI Director if pressed and given no choice but to obey the
    order or resign?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I will always obey the law.
        Senator Coons. Does obeying the law require you to, as
    Attorney General Bell said, as FBI Director Wray said, refuse
    the order or resign?
        Mr. Patel. I don't--I'm not familiar with the extent of the
    law that you're referring to, but my answer is simple in my 16
    years of Government service. We will simply follow the law, and
    I've done that in Obama Justice Department, in Republican
    Justice Departments, in the Obama military, in Republican
    civilian capacity. I have never once wavered from my
    constitutional oath of office. I'm not going to start.
        Senator Coons. Mr. Patel, your predecessors in this role
    have been clear that they would be willing to resign if forced
    or directed to do something unethical or illegal. I'll proceed.
        One of your past statements that's concerned me, it's both
    a post on Truth Social and something you said in a podcast,
    ``The Sean Morgan Report,'' that your predecessor, Chris Wray,
    ``has broken the law. We need to prosecute him. The FBI should
    go after people like him.'' And the month before this, in July
    2023, you said, ``There should be a criminal referral for FBI
    Director Wray.'' If confirmed, are you going to follow through
    on these previous statements that Director Wray needs to be
    prosecuted?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, this reminds me of the conversation you
    and I had, which I greatly appreciated. There is enough violent
    crime in this country and enough national security threats to
    this country that the FBI is going to be busy going forward
    preventing a hundred thousand overdoses, a hundred thousand
    rapes, and 17,000 homicides.
        Senator Coons. We agree that prosecuting violent crimes
    should be the principal focus of the FBI. What I'm trying to
    get to, Mr. Patel, is a whole series of very troubling--to me
    and many others--statements you've made about instead using it
    to pursue those who might be viewed as political opponents.
        Mr. Patel. And as I told you in your office, I have no
    interest, no desire, and will not, if confirmed, go backward.
    There will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no
    retributive actions taken by any FBI, should I be confirmed as
    the FBI Director. I told you that in your office, and I'll tell
    you that again today.
        Senator Coons. Thank you for that statement. As the Co-
    Chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus with Senator Cornyn, one of
    the things I've worked hard on, and I hope to continue being
    able to work hard on with this administration, is partnership
    between Federal, State, and local law enforcement to pursue
    violent crime. You did say, as my colleague asked, and I'd
    looked for a longer answer, that you want to close the FBI
    Bureau's headquarters on day one. How would shutting down the
    FBI headquarters impact its ability to prosecute violent crime
    and drug traffickers? How is that possibly a serious proposal,
    Mr. Patel?
        Mr. Patel. Thank you for bringing that up and allowing me
    to answer. It was to highlight the significantly greater point
    that I was actually making in that interview, which is well
    documented over and over again: 38,000 FBI employees--7,500 FBI
    employees work in the Washington Field Office in Hoover
    Building alone. If you increase that aperture just slightly to
    encompass the National Capital Region, that is 11,000 FBI
    employees work in the National Capital Region. A third of the
    workforce for the FBI works in Washington, DC. I am fully
    committed to having that workforce go out into the interior of
    the country where I live--west of the Mississippi--and work
    with sheriff's departments and local officers and having one
    agent prevent one homicide and having one agent in Washington
    prevent one rape. And I will do that over and over and over
    again because the American people deserve the resources--not in
    Washington, DC, but in the rest of the country.
        Senator Coons. And Mr. Patel, frankly, if that had been
    your statement, that would be something that would be
    defensible. It's the rest of it, saying you're going to turn it
    into a museum of the deep state, that causes repeated questions
    and concerns from people like myself. Thank you, Mr. Patel.
        Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Hawley, I'd
    like to enter letters into the record from scores of State
    attorneys general, former U.S. attorneys, former U.S.
    Department of Justice officials who support the nominee. They
    state, quote, ``Mr. Patel will bring to this critically
    important office his unique and extensive experience combating
    terrorism, protecting our national security. We have no doubt
    that Kash Patel will serve our Nation in this important post
    with integrity and tireless efforts to protect the American
    people.''
        [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Patel, welcome. It's great to see you again. I enjoyed our
    conversation in my office a while back. Let me ask you this. Is
    it appropriate for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
    attempt to recruit spies or informants into religious
    institutions in this country, particularly Catholic parishes?
    Is that appropriate?
        Mr. Patel. I don't believe so, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Mr. Patel, are you familiar with the recent
    actions of the FBI in this regard, including this memo that I
    have right here, making a list of Catholic churches and
    parishes that they regard as potentially suspect, and directing
    the potential recruitment of informants and other spies, let's
    be honest, into those parishes?
        Mr. Patel. I'm familiar with that memo, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Mr. Patel, would you commit to me that you
    will, if you are confirmed, that you will finally and
    officially withdraw this memo and make it clear that this is
    not only unacceptable, but that it is an absolute violation of
    the First Amendment that every American enjoys under the
    Constitution of the United States?
        Mr. Patel. If I'm confirmed, Senator, yes.
        Senator Hawley. Will you also commit to me that you will
    conduct an investigation and find out who wrote this memo, who
    spread this memo, the field offices involved in this memo,
    because I can tell you, we've had your predecessor sit right
    where you're sitting, and he has repeatedly--repeatedly lied
    to--there's no other word for it--lied to this Committee.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Hawley. He told us initially that it didn't happen,
    that the FBI didn't make any list of churches. That's not true.
    We have it. A whistleblower brought forward the list for us. He
    said then that only one field office had worked on it. Turns
    out, we know from another whistleblower, multiple field offices
    worked on it. He said that it was never posted on the internal
    system. It turns out it was. We believe it's still in effect.
    Will you find out who was involved in this gross abuse of
    Americans' First Amendment rights, and will you discipline
    them, and if you possibly can, will you fire them, Mr. Patel,
    consistent with Department policy and law?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, you have my commitment to investigate
    any matters such as this one that are important to Congress. I
    will fully utilize, if confirmed, the investigative powers of
    the FBI to give you the information you require and also to
    hold those accountable who violated the sacred trust placed in
    them at the FBI.
        Senator Hawley. I'm glad to hear you say that, and I'm glad
    you used the word ``sacred trust,'' because that's exactly what
    it is. The FBI is the most powerful law enforcement body in
    this Nation, arguably the most powerful law enforcement body,
    at least in a free Nation, in the world. And to have this body
    corrupted politically such that it is targeting people of faith
    in this country and then lying about it to this Committee and
    the American people is unimaginable. I'll be honest with you, I
    never thought this would happen in the United States of
    America. I just didn't. If you had told me 5 years ago we'd be
    reading memos like this, I would have said, no way, no way,
    that's bad fiction. In fact, it's a horrible reality. The
    Department needs to be cleaned up--the agency does--and rights
    restored and protected. I'm glad to hear you say that.
        Let me ask you this. Do you think it is appropriate for the
    FBI to be sending agents, including counterterrorism agents, to
    the parents of children who went to school board meetings and
    asked about Critical Race Theory in their schools, asked about
    the school's masking policy during COVID? Should those parents
    be treated as domestic terrorists?
        Mr. Patel. Parents who have the courage to ensure their
    children are taught what they feel is right, and those who have
    the courage of their convictions to go to houses of worship, in
    my book, will never be domestic terrorists.
        Senator Hawley. I'm delighted to hear you say that. You're
    familiar, I am sure, with this memorandum issued by the last
    Attorney General, Merrick Garland, directing the FBI and other
    law enforcement agencies to look into parents who went to these
    school board meetings. And we know from whistleblowers who've
    come forward to this Committee and given us the evidence that,
    in fact, the FBI opened multiple cases against multiple parents
    across the Nation, I believe, including in my home State of
    Missouri--another gross abuse, incredible political power
    brought to bear against everyday citizens. Why? Because they
    went to a school board meeting that they're paying for and
    asked about what their kids were being taught. Once again, I
    can't imagine, I couldn't have ever thought this would happen
    in the United States of America.
        Will you find out who was involved in this policy within
    the FBI? Who agreed with it? Who implemented it? Who encouraged
    it? Will you find out that, Mr. Patel? Will you do an internal
    investigation, and will you make clear that those who supported
    this policy are appropriately disciplined. And will you make
    clear that the FBI will never do something like this again?
        Mr. Patel. If confirmed and pursuant to your congressional
    request, absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you. Let me ask you this. Do you
    think it's appropriate for the FBI to target people of faith,
    particularly those who hold pro-life convictions? Do you think
    that it's appropriate for the FBI to single out and target
    people of faith in order to discourage the exercise of their
    First Amendment rights?
        Mr. Patel. There can never be a targeting by law
    enforcement just based on their people's faiths.
        Senator Hawley. And yet, under this last administration,
    the FBI and DOJ together brought numerous, numerous
    prosecutions under the FACE Act for nonviolent protests.
    President Trump has recently pardoned some of these folks, but
    it also includes individuals like Mark Houck from Philadelphia
    region, from Pennsylvania, who had an FBI SWAT team arrive at
    his door in the early hours of the morning, armed, of course,
    terrorizing him and his children--took him into custody. They
    charged him with a FACE Act violation. Why? Because he took his
    young son to a peaceful demonstration outside an abortion
    clinic. When his young son was shoved to the ground, he
    defended him. Mark Houck was acquitted by a jury. Acquitted.
    Nevertheless, the FBI used their full resources, including a
    SWAT team, to try and terrorize him. Meanwhile, how many
    churches that were firebombed or pregnancy care centers that
    were firebombed, how many of them were protected by the last
    administration? Just about zero.
        It is an unbelievable instance of targeting. Mr. Patel,
    will you end this targeting? If you get to the FBI, if you are
    confirmed, will you end it, and will you make clear to all
    agency personnel that there can be no targeting on the basis of
    religious belief, and this will never happen again in the
    United States of America--at least not under your watch?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, if confirmed, and this speaks to an
    issue we were talking about earlier, there will be no such
    targeting if I'm confirmed as FBI Director. And the resources
    of the FBI, which are funded by the American taxpayer, in the 7
    minutes that you and I have been talking about, two people have
    died from fentanyl overdoses, one person has been shot to death
    in this country, and three people have been raped. The
    resources of the FBI will go to that mission set and that
    mission set alone because America deserves a better brand of
    justice, and I'm going to give it to them.
        Senator Hawley. Fantastic. Here's my last question for you.
    Do you think it's appropriate for the FBI to try and pressure
    the largest technology corporations in the world, the most
    powerful corporations in the world--social media companies--do
    you think it's appropriate for the FBI to pressure them to
    censor the political speech of everyday American citizens to
    try and violate the First Amendment? Is that appropriate, do
    you think, Mr. Patel?
        Mr. Patel. No, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Will you put an end to this, Mr. Patel, if
    you are confirmed at the FBI?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, if confirmed, I will work with Congress
    to expose any corrupt activities the FBI has participated in,
    especially involved in the censorship of free speech.
        Senator Hawley. Because we know from the court cases that
    have been brought across this country, and we know from the
    voluminous factual finding that was done, and it's in the
    record, that the FBI and other agencies of this Government
    under the last administration pressured, coerced these social
    media companies to censor speech of everyday Americans on a
    range of issues. From the Hunter Biden laptop to COVID to the
    Dobbs decision--you name it, they tried to censor them. The
    Constitution doesn't permit the Government to do it. The FBI
    tried to get the social media companies to do it. Will you end
    this practice, Mr. Patel, once and for all?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I will always follow the law. Thank
    you.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blumenthal is next. I want to
    say when he's done--so let's see, the 30-minute break would
    make it about 12:25 p.m. or something. I expect you to be back
    here on time, and I'm going to have Senator Lee--I'm going to
    go open the Senate up now--will you chair for me?
        Senator Lee. Sure.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
    Patel. Thank you for being here, and thank you for visiting
    with me in my office. At almost exactly the moment that you
    were talking to me, the Department of Justice was firing more
    than a dozen lawyers who worked with the Special Counsel, Jack
    Smith, simply because they were involved in that case. You've
    committed that the FBI will not be politicized. So here's your
    first test. Will you commit that you will not tolerate the
    firing of the FBI agents who worked with the Special Counsel's
    Office on these investigations?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I appreciate the time to visit with
    you----
        Senator Blumenthal. It is a yes-or-no answer, and it is
    your first test.
        Mr. Patel. Senator, every FBI employee will be held to the
    absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for case
    assignments.
        Senator Blumenthal. And I'm not going to accept that answer
    because if you can't commit that those FBI agents will be
    protected from political retribution, we can't accept you as
    FBI Director.
        Mr. Patel. All FBI employees will be protected against
    political retribution.
        Senator Blumenthal. They deserve--those individuals deserve
    to be protected from Trump retribution. That was your first
    test. You failed it, and that is a----
        Mr. Patel. By saying all FBI employees should be protected?
        Senator Blumenthal. That is a test of professional
    diligence because it is the measure of whether you will stand
    up and say ``no'' to the President if he gives you an unlawful
    or illegal order. Let me turn to the J6 choir. You know who the
    J6 prison choir is, don't you?
        Mr. Patel. It's been referenced earlier, yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. And you know about the song that, in
    fact, you produced, you promoted, and you used to, as you put
    it, ``raise awareness and support for the political prisoners
    still locked in jail.''
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Blumenthal. Those J6 choir, were they political
    prisoners?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know everyone in the J6 choir.
        Senator Blumenthal. That's what you said.
        Mr. Patel. That's not how I read it, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. This is your tweet. That's your whole
    statement.
        Mr. Patel. Well, I'm reading it now.
        Senator Blumenthal. You won't stand behind your own
    statements made in tweets, countless of them. As a matter of
    fact, as you put it to Steve Bannon on his show, ``Then we went
    into a studio and recorded it, mastered it, digitized it, and
    put it as a song, now releasing it exclusively in the `War
    Room'.'' That was the J6 prison choir song.
        Mr. Patel. And all proceeds were given away to charity to
    help families in need.
        Senator Blumenthal. And you called them political
    prisoners. Julian Khater, do you know what he did?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know who that is, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, he's one of the J6 prison choir--
    --
        Mr. Patel. You seem to know more about it than I do.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Identified in a court
    filing--and you're saying now you don't know who he is? You
    glorified him and the rest of that choir. He's the one who
    sprayed U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick with pepper
    spray. Officer Sicknick died the next day. Khater admitted his
    violence. He pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer. Do
    you believe that Julian Khater was a political prisoner?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I'm not familiar with his case. You
    seem to know a lot more about it than I do. And as I said
    repeatedly, I will always utilize my resources to help
    Americans in need, which is what I was trying to do here, and I
    have never once advocated for political violence or violence
    against law enforcement.
        Senator Blumenthal. Ryan Nichols. Ryan Nichols also pleaded
    guilty to assaulting a police officer. He was one of the J6
    choir. He pushed the crowd against officers defending a door to
    the Capitol and sprayed officers with pepper spray. Is Ryan
    Nichols a political prisoner?
        Mr. Patel. Same answer, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. How about Jorden Mink, another member
    of the J6 choir?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know who he is.
        Senator Blumenthal. James McGrew, a political prisoner?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know who that is.
        Senator Blumenthal. James McGrew pushed and struck officers
    and launched a handrail toward them--and you glorified him. You
    promoted and produced a song to raise money for them. And you
    now want us to believe you don't know who they are?
        Mr. Patel. No part of that song or anything I've done in my
    16 years of Government service glorifies or advocates for
    violence against law enforcement. And the fact that you would
    be willing to say that in front of these people in the American
    audience shows how much of a divide we actually have to restore
    a law enforcement that is constitutionally based, de-weaponized
    and depoliticized. You have my commitment to do that. In your
    office, we had a lot of common ground. I'm committed to working
    with you on things like Section 230 and making sure the
    citizens of Connecticut aren't pillaged by Chinese fentanyl.
        Senator Blumenthal. I welcome your statement, Mr. Patel,
    but it doesn't answer my question, and it doesn't go to your
    credibility in denying, you know, who these people are--after,
    and I have to say, in this tweet and in others, I have a raft
    of them. I'm going to ask the Chairman that they be made a part
    of the record, if there's no objection.
        Senator Lee [presiding]. Without objection.
        [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
        Senator Blumenthal. You glorified, you promoted, you
    supported these individuals: Ronald Sandlin--he struck an
    officer in the head, hand, and shoulders, and grabbed another
    officer. Was he a political prisoner?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know who that is, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, the simple fact is that you knew
    about the J6 choir. You knew what they did in assaulting and
    endangering police officers who sought to defend the Capitol on
    that day, were severely injured, and some, as a consequence,
    died. I think the FBI deserves better. The men and women of the
    FBI put their lives on the line every day. I've worked with
    them as United States attorney for 4\1/2\ years, and then as
    attorney general, off and on, for 20 years. I've admired them
    for the 14 years that I've been in this body. I think they
    deserve better. Thank you.
        Senator Lee. As we turn to Senator Cruz, I'll notice that
    the statement that he has up does say ``without trial,'' and I
    think that plays some role in the context of that statement.
    Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, welcome.
    Let me first of all say thank you. Thank you for saying yes
    when President Trump asked you to serve in this role. I think
    there are very few roles in all of Government that are more
    important than Director of the FBI, and there are very few
    roles in all of Government that are more in need of a
    fundamental change. You and I have both spent much of our adult
    lives working in and around law enforcement, and the loss of
    respect from the American people of the FBI and of the
    Department of Justice is one of the most tragic developments of
    the last 4 years. Both the Department of Justice and the FBI
    have a long history of being apolitical--outside of politics,
    of being faithful to and focused on upholding the rule of law
    and keeping the American people safe. And in many ways, the
    worst legacy, in my opinion, of the Biden administration was
    the complete politicization and weaponization of both the
    Department of Justice and the FBI, turning them into tools to
    attack the perceived enemies of the Biden White House.
        Now, you have been charged with going in and restoring
    integrity of the FBI. That is not going to be an easy task. But
    before you can carry out that task, and I am confident you will
    be confirmed and you will be in the position to carry out that
    task, you've got to make it through the gauntlet of the Senate
    Judiciary Committee and my colleagues on the Democrat side of
    the aisle, who I don't know how many spots on Senator Tillis'
    bingo card have been filled, but it looks like he's playing
    blackout, and they're all filled right now. But you will be and
    have been accused of just about everything they can.
        But I want to focus on what several Democrats have done
    recently, which is trying to blame you for the violence that
    occurred on January 6, which even in the annals of ridiculous
    attacks, this one really takes the cake. So let's just focus on
    some facts. Let me ask you a question. What role did you occupy
    in the days immediately before January 6?
        Mr. Patel. Chief of staff of the Department of Defense.
        Senator Cruz. You were the chief of staff at the Department
    of Defense.
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cruz. So to be clear, you were not rioting at the
    Capitol?
        Mr. Patel. No, sir.
        Senator Cruz. Okay. Where were you physically on January 6?
        Mr. Patel. In the office of the Secretary of Defense in the
    Pentagon.
        Senator Cruz. And what were you doing on that day?
        Mr. Patel. On that day, specifically, responding to--
    preparing to mobilize and deploy the National Guard once we got
    the lawful request from the local governing authority, which
    was the Mayor of DC and the Speaker of the House.
        Senator Cruz. Now, how many days in advance were you
    working to prepare the Department of Defense to help secure the
    Capitol on January 6?
        Mr. Patel. Days in advance, Senator, we were in the Oval
    Office on an unrelated national security matter with the
    President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and myself. And the
    President authorized up to 20,000-plus National Guard's men and
    women to secure any security measures necessary related to the
    Capitol. So we were moving to the fullest extent of the law
    before the requisite request came from a local governing
    authority days ahead of time.
        Senator Cruz. And while you were chief of staff at DOD, how
    many times did DOD approach Capitol Police and ask if they
    needed National Guard assistance?
        Mr. Patel. I believe those letters are well documented--
    numerous instances, and numerous of those instances, those
    requests were shut down.
        Senator Cruz. Now, am I correct that the Capitol Sergeant
    at Arms said assistance was unnecessary?
        Mr. Patel. That's correct, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. Who did the Sergeant at Arms report to?
        Mr. Patel. The Speaker of the House.
        Senator Cruz. That would've been Nancy Pelosi at the time.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. And would that also be Chuck Schumer, then
    the Senate Majority Leader?
        Mr. Patel. The Sergeant at Arms, yes, Senator, reports up
    there.
        Senator Cruz. Did Mayor Bowser, the Democrat-elected Mayor
    in DC, either request or allow National Guard assistance?
        Mr. Patel. She put in writing, on the days leading up to
    January 6, a declination for National Guard additional support,
    and that letter is available publicly to the world.
        Senator Cruz. So, and just to speak English for folks at
    home, a declination meant she said, no, don't send National
    Guard. Is that right?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cruz. Let me ask you a simple question because from
    the questioning from my Democrat colleagues, they might think
    otherwise. Do you condemn violence against law enforcement?
        Mr. Patel. All of it.
        Senator Cruz. And by the way, is that true whether the
    violence is right wing or left wing or anywhere else?
        Mr. Patel. There is no discriminating between types of
    violence against law enforcement.
        Senator Cruz. And do you believe those who assault and
    commit violence against law enforcement should be prosecuted
    and should be sent to jail?
        Mr. Patel. Especially those that kill them.
        Senator Cruz. Let me ask you, how many years have you
    worked in public service?
        Mr. Patel. About 16, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. And how many years have you worked, in
    particular, in law enforcement and prosecution and national
    security?
        Mr. Patel. Over a decade, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. You know, I have to say it is ludicrous, but
    sadly predictable, that Democrats are endeavoring to tarnish
    you, to paint a false caricature based on innuendo and smoke.
    And so you're working to protect the Capitol on January 6, and
    yet they're trying to blame you for the violence that occurred.
    Let me ask you to this just as a straightforward matter. What
    is the job of the FBI, and what will the FBI's role be if and
    when you are confirmed as its Director?
        Mr. Patel. The simple motto on the website of the FBI's
    homepage is to protect American citizens and uphold the
    Constitution. If I am confirmed as the next Director of the
    FBI, that's what we're going to do and redirect resources to
    making sure that occurs every single day.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you for your willingness to do so, and
    this Committee will hold you to account on restoring integrity
    at the FBI, and I thank you also for your commitment to
    transparency. I think that is incredibly important to bringing
    back integrity, and I'm grateful for it.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Lee. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, as part
    of my responsibility as a Member of this Committee, I ask the
    following two initial questions of all nominees before any of
    my Committees. Since you became a legal adult, have you ever
    made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any
    verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
        Mr. Patel. No, Senator, I have not.
        Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
    into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?
        Mr. Patel. No, Senator, I have not.
        Senator Hirono. Mr. Patel, you have been a champion of the
    January 6 prison choir.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Hirono. You have stated that the choir's members
    were, quote, ``incarcerated as a result of their involvement in
    the January 6, 2021, protest for election integrity,'' end
    quote. One of the choir members is Julian Khater, who pled
    guilty--he pled guilty--to assaulting officers with a deadly
    weapon. On January 6, he attacked Capitol Police Officer Brian
    Sicknick with pepper spray, and the next day, Officer Sicknick
    suffered from two strokes and died. Mr. Patel, was Mr. Khater
    protesting for election integrity? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know who that is.
        Senator Hirono. I'm not asking you who that is. I'm asking
    you whether, having heard the description of what he pled to,
    whether he was protesting for election integrity. Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know who that is, and that statement----
        Senator Hirono. That is not responsive to my question.
    You're not willing to say that, but you were willing to
    describe this choir as consisting of people who are protesting
    for election integrity, and yet you testify you don't know
    them.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Hirono. We have heard already, your book includes a
    list of 60 people who you think make up part of the executive
    branch deep state. Mr. Patel, if confirmed, do you plan to
    investigate President Trump's former FBI Director, Christopher
    Wray? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel. I have no plans in going backward. I have no
    plans in safeguarding----
        Senator Hirono. How about James Comey? Do you plan to
    investigate him?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, every investigation will be subject to
    the same legal standard.
        Senator Hirono. You plan to investigate James Comey, who's
    on your list?
        Mr. Patel. I have no intentions of going backward----
        Senator Hirono. How about Bill Bar?
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. And every intention of using the
    Constitution.
        Senator Hirono. How about Bill Barr? Do you plan to
    investigate him, who's on your executive branch deep state, and
    you say you're going to ferret out the deep state? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel. No one that did not break the law will be
    investigated.
        Senator Hirono. That's ``no'' answers to any of those.
    Okay. Over 1 million Americans died----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Hirono. As a result of COVID-19. The COVID-19
    vaccine saved lives, yet less than a year ago, you promoted
    unregulated, unproven, unscientific supplements to reverse the
    effects of the vaccine on Truth Social. You told your followers
    that these supplements would detox them of the COVID-19
    vaccine. Mr. Patel, did you make money by promoting these
    supplements?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, do you know of any individuals who died
    as a result of complications----
        Senator Hirono. Yes, again----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. From the vaccine----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. Are you----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. Because I do.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. Are you unable to answer my
    question, which is a straightforward, did you make money by
    promoting these supplements?
        Mr. Patel. All of my financial disclosures have been made
    to this Committee.
        Senator Hirono. I would like to hear your answer, yes or
    no? Did you make money?
        Mr. Patel. I don't have----
        Senator Hirono. This is my third and last time----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. Those financial disclosures----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. I'm going to ask you that
    question.
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. In front of me. You have that
    information.
        Senator Hirono. So you refuse to answer the question----
        Mr. Patel. I answered----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. You are----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. 1,300 pages.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. You are--you--no answer, and
    yet you spread dangerous misinformation. Mr. Patel, the FBI is
    the primary agency responsible for investigating election-
    related crimes, including fraud and the denial of voting
    rights. So being able to separate fact from conspiracy theories
    around elections is an important thing for the FBI Director. I
    have a question to see if you can do that. Mr. Patel, did
    Donald Trump lose the 2020 Presidential election? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel. President Biden's election was certified, he was
    sworn in, and he served as the President of the United States.
        Senator Hirono. Once again, the people who are 100 percent
    loyal to President Trump cannot answer that question. It is
    alarming that you want to be an FBI Director who can't answer a
    simple question--factual question. During a 2023 interview----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. With Steve Bannon, you said,
    quote, ``We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in
    government, but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after
    the people in the media who lied about the American citizens,
    who helped Joe Biden rig Presidential elections.'' There's your
    quote. Do you still plan to come after the free press?
        Mr. Patel. Not unless private citizens have been defamed.
    That's their right.
        Senator Hirono. You said that you would be going after the
    media that's--so I want to know whether you plan to do that, go
    after the free media?
        Mr. Patel. I can't go after the media for other people.
    That's a decision they have to make.
        Senator Hirono. So I would say that that was a statement
    that you made that is pretty chilling to the free media. So I
    didn't hear a ``no'' that you would not go after them. You
    currently serve on the board of directors for the Trump Media
    Technology Group, which owns the social media platform, Truth
    Social. If confirmed as FBI Director, will you resign from this
    position and end all ties with the Trump Media and Technology
    Group?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator, as I've stated to you in writing.
        Senator Hirono. Over the last 2 years, the FBI has
    dedicated resources to Operation Not Forgotten, which works to
    address violent crime in Indian Country.
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Hirono. If confirmed as FBI Director, would you
    continue the important work of Operation Not Forgotten?
        Mr. Patel. I've made that commitment to many of your
    colleagues who have Tribal issues and Tribal crimes plaguing
    their communities, and I'll make that commitment to you, as
    well, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. My time is almost up, but I would like to
    note that on the many questions asked about the choir--the J6
    choir, it included at least five men who pled guilty to
    assaulting police officers, and these are the people whose
    record this nominee promotes. Thank you.
        Senator Lee. Okay. We'll go to Senator Kennedy next, and
    then, as directed by the Chairman, we will take a 30-minute
    recess at the conclusion of Senator Kennedy's questioning.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
    say, for the record, that Chairman Grassley is the greatest
    Chairman God ever put breath in----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. And would somebody please
    tell Grassley I said that?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. You've made a lot of people
    mad. Haven't you, Mr. Patel?
        Mr. Patel. Seems so, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Think maybe you've made the right people
    mad?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Patel. As my FBI agents, the brick agents, told me when
    I was running cases with them across this country and around
    the world, if you're not ticking off some people, you're not
    doing your job right.
        Senator Kennedy. My colleague and friend, Senator Durbin,
    called you a conspiracy theorist. Do you remember that?
        Mr. Patel. I do, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. You were instrumental in revealing that
    the Trump Russia election collusion hoax was a hoax. Weren't
    you?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir. I was the lead investigator.
        Senator Kennedy. Sounds to me like we need to get some new
    conspiracy theories because all the old ones turned out to be
    true.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Patel. Facts matter, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. I mean, conspiracy theorists are up
    something like 37-to-nothing.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. You're not saying that everybody at the
    FBI is bad. Are you?
        Mr. Patel. Never said that. I've overwhelmingly said
    multiple times that 98 percent of the FBI is courageous,
    apolitical warriors of justice. They just need better
    leadership, especially those who participated in these
    conspiracies that actually turned out----
        Senator Kennedy. Who put away the Unabomber?
        Mr. Patel. The FBI.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. Who put away Timothy McVeigh and his
    Stalin's stomach for blood?
        Mr. Patel. Brick agents at the FBI.
        Senator Kennedy. Who helped investigate Jussie Smollett,
    who, in an effort of self-aggrandizement, set back the fight
    for minority rights for years?
        Mr. Patel. I think that was local authorities.
        Senator Kennedy. It was the FBI, had opened an
    investigation. Wasn't it?
        Mr. Patel. Eventually, yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. There have been or were some bad people at
    the FBI and the Justice Department which worked hand-in-glove.
    Weren't there?
        Mr. Patel. Unfortunately, yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Secretary Clinton's lawyer, a gentleman by
    the name of Michael Sussmann, had a pass to come and go at the
    FBI building as he wished. Don't you think the American people
    have a right to know about the details of that?
        Mr. Patel. Not just that, but what a political party was
    doing with the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
    with direct access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hunter Biden cheated on his income
    taxes--didn't pay $1.4 million in income taxes over 4 years.
    And he filed fraudulent returns. He tried to deduct his hookers
    as a business expense, for God's sakes, and they hit him with
    two misdemeanors before there was a public outcry. Don't you
    think the American people are entitled to know the details of
    that?
        Mr. Patel. The American people are entitled to a singular
    form of justice and the details to every public corruption
    investigation.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you remember Peter Strzok?
        Mr. Patel. I sure do.
        Senator Kennedy. One of the lead investigators for Mr.
    Mueller's Russian collusion hoax?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you remember when the Inspector
    General, not his colleagues, turned him in? The Inspector
    General found that Mr. Peter Strzok said, quote--sent an email
    to his girlfriend, quote, ``just went to a Southern Virginia
    Walmart. I could smell the Trump support,'' end of quote.
    Remember that?
        Mr. Patel. He did that while employed at the FBI, while
    working on that investigation.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you remember when the IG revealed
    another email by Mr. Strzok to his girlfriend? Mr. Strzok said,
    quote, ``I am riled up. Trump is a fucking idiot. He's unable
    to provide a coherent answer,'' end of quote. Do you remember
    that?
        Mr. Patel. Peter Strzok said that.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you remember when his girlfriend texted
    Mr. Strzok, quote, ``Trump's not ever going to become
    President. Right? Right? '' and Mr. Strzok replied, ``No. No,
    he won't. We'll stop it.''
        Mr. Patel. I do remember their insurance policy.
        Senator Kennedy. And then Mr. Strzok testified, in front of
    God and country, that never had his political beliefs impacted
    his work. Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
        Mr. Patel. When I was a kid.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you believe Jimmy Hoffa died of natural
    causes?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Patel. He's also not in the end zone of Giants stadium.
        Senator Kennedy. And then Mr. Strzok got fired, and next
    thing we know, the FBI and the Department of Justice, after he
    sued, gave him $1.2 million. Don't you think the American
    people are entitled to know the details of that?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely.
        Senator Kennedy. Now, I want you to think hard before you
    answer my next question. Do you believe in the adage that two
    wrongs don't make a right, but they do make it even?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I think if anyone commits a wrong in
    Government service, the American public deserve to know the
    absolute secular detail of that corrupt activity.
        Senator Kennedy. When reforming the FBI and the Justice
    Department, two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make it
    even is the wrong approach. Isn't it?
        Mr. Patel. That's correct.
        Senator Kennedy. And we're going to hold you accountable
    for that.
        Mr. Patel. I hope you do.
        Senator Kennedy. Now, there's some--there's some good
    people at the FBI.
        Mr. Patel. Lots.
        Senator Kennedy. And there have been, and may still be,
    some bad people there. And you've got to find out who the bad
    people are and get rid of them in accordance with due process
    and the rule of law. And then you've got to lift up the good
    people. Don't go over there and burn that place down. Go over
    there and make it better. Do you commit to us today that you
    will do that?
        Mr. Patel. I commit to you, if confirmed, Senator, every
    single day, 24/7/365, the FBI will be the premier law
    enforcement agency in the world.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Hawley [presiding]. We'll now recess for a 30-
    minute lunch break. We'll return at approximately 12:40, and we
    will resume with Senator Booker's questions.
        [Whereupon the hearing was recessed and reconvened.]
        Chairman Grassley [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Patel, for
    returning on time. Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm struggling with
    a bit of the flu here but thought it was really important to
    come.
        Chairman Grassley. Everybody's--everybody's got flu.
        Senator Booker. Yes, it's been pretty rough, but I
    appreciate the time. And, Mr. Patel, if I can jump right in.
    Twelve prosecutors--12 career prosecutors were involved in an
    investigation and prosecuting the cases against President
    Trump----
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Booker [continuing]. And were recently fired.
        Some of those that were involved in the Mar-a-Lago
    classified documents case. Do you know who Brett Reynolds is?
        Mr. Patel. Maybe, but it doesn't ring a bell at this point,
    sir.
        Senator Booker. You're under oath. You have no recollection
    of who Brett Reynolds is?
        Mr. Patel. If you could provide me with a little more
    context, I could possibly remember.
        Senator Booker. Are you aware of any plans or discussions
    to punish in any way, including termination, FBI agents or
    personnel associated with Trump investigations?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, just to be clear, I did not participate
    in any of those DOJ decisions.
        Senator Booker. Sir, that's a yes-or-no question. Are you
    aware of any plans or discussions to punish, in any way,
    including termination, FBI agents or personnel associated with
    Trump investigations? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel. I'm not aware of that, Senator.
        Senator Booker. Thank you. There is no evidence of
    wrongdoing by FBI employees involved in these investigations.
    If you do pursue investigations of those involved, will you
    commit to using standard processes, including a standard review
    by the FBI Inspections Division and the Inspector General?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I will honor all of those review
    processes.
        Senator Booker. You will honor those review processes.
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Booker. If these are actions against FBI employees
    that do not follow those standard processes that happen before
    you get in, will you commit to reversing any decision prior to
    your arrival so that those standard processes and the standard
    review by the FBI Inspections Division will take place?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know what's going on right now over
    there, but I'm committed to you, Senator, and your colleagues,
    that I will honor the internal review process of the FBI.
        Senator Booker. Have you made any commitments to anyone
    about pursuing any investigations or targets if you are FBI
    Director?
        Mr. Patel. Only violent criminals and terrorists.
        Senator Booker. Have you had any conversations with anyone
    on the transition team about pursuing any investigations or
    targets?
        Mr. Patel. Only following the Constitution.
        Senator Booker. Again, are you certain?
        Mr. Patel. That I have told people on the----
        Senator Booker. Have you made----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. Administration----
        Senator Booker. Are you certain? Have you made, had any
    conversations with anyone on the transition team about pursuing
    any investigations or targets?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, to the best of my recollection, I've
    only said I will use the Constitution.
        Senator Booker. Have you had any--have you discussed
    specific investigations or targets you would pursue as FBI
    Director with the President of the United States?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, to the best of my recollection, no.
        Senator Booker. Are you certain?
        Mr. Patel. To the best of my recollection, no.
        Senator Booker. According to public reports, you were
    subpoenaed by the Federal prosecutors to testify as a witness
    before the grand jury investigation investigating the Mar-a-
    Lago classified documents case. And you testified before the
    grand jury. Correct?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir.
        Senator Booker. And when you were before the grand jury,
    you pled the Fifth on the basis of self-incrimination. Correct?
        Mr. Patel. I utilized my constitutional rights during that
    process with the advice and consent of counsel and appeared
    before that grand jury.
        Senator Booker. I will take that as a yes. And you are
    familiar, I imagine, with Section 6002 of Title 18?
        Mr. Patel. Off the top of my head, Senator, no.
        Senator Booker. Well, Section 6002 is the immunity statute.
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Booker. Whenever a witness refuses to testify or
    provide other information before a grand jury based upon the
    privilege against self-incrimination, the court can order the
    witness to testify. The witness must comply with the order, but
    they receive immunity, which means that no testimony or any
    other information provided before the grand jury can be used
    against them in any criminal proceeding. You were compelled to
    testify as a witness in the Mar-a-Lago classified document
    case. Did you participate in any criminal conduct involved in
    that case?
        Mr. Patel. Involved in which? The Mar-a-Lago classified
    documents case?
        Senator Booker. Yes.
        Mr. Patel. No, I testified through a compulsion by court
    order.
        Senator Booker. You received immunity for providing
    information that was self-incriminating. Do you remember the
    name of the prosecutor who questioned you?
        Mr. Patel. There were multiple, Senator. I do not.
        Senator Booker. Was it one of the people--were any of them
    people that were fired this past week?
        Mr. Patel. I have no idea, Senator.
        Senator Booker. Are you certain? You're under oath.
        Mr. Patel. I'm aware that I'm under oath, Senator, and I
    have no idea, and I did not participate in the removal of any
    DOJ prosecutors.
        Senator Booker. What was the information you provided that
    you received immunity for?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I would love my grand jury testimony to
    be released, but as you know, that grand jury testimony has
    been sealed by the Department of Justice, and I'm not allowed
    to discuss it here.
        Senator Booker. Well, I find it troubling that you do not
    know the law here, and let me tell you what the law is----
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Booker [continuing]. Rule 6 governs grand jury
    proceedings. Under Rule 6(e), ``Grand jurors, court reporters,
    and prosecutors are bound to secrecy, but witnesses are not
    bound by secrecy.'' You were a witness in the classified
    documents case. You are not bound by secrecy. You can tell us
    everything that happened in that room and everything you
    testified about. I'll ask you again, what information did you
    provide to the grand jury?
        Mr. Patel. In this we are in agreement, Senator. Get my
    grand jury testimony. I want it made public. I asked the
    Department of Justice----
        Senator Booker. But why----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. To make it public----
        Senator Booker [continuing]. There is no legal----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. And they refused to do so.
        Senator Booker [continuing]. There is no legal bound
    against you telling us right now what you--what you testified
    to.
        Mr. Patel. When I asked for my transcript to be released--
    --
        Senator Booker. Sir, did you----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. The Department of Justice----
        Senator Booker [continuing]. Or did you not commit a crime?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I did not commit a crime.
        Senator Booker. Then why won't you tell us what you
    testified to?
        Mr. Patel. Because it occurred over the course of 3 weeks.
    I don't have the ability to recall everything I testified to--
    --
        Senator Booker. Did you testify to----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. But I'm asking you to put my
    transcript out.
        Senator Booker [continuing]. Witnessing the President of
    the United States declassifying documents?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, what I testified to is best captured by
    that transcript in real time.
        Senator Booker. So you're not willing to tell Congress,
    after making many pledges today about transparency, whether or
    not you testified to witnessing the President of the United
    States declassify documents? In the name of all the values you
    have said today, did you or did you not testify to witnessing
    the President of the United States declassify documents?
        Mr. Patel. I testified accordingly and under oath, and I
    encourage you to get that transcript.
        Senator Booker. And by the law of our land, you are free to
    tell people. What are you hiding from Congress? Answer the
    question. Did you testify to witnessing the President of the
    United States declassifying documents? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, the grand jury testimony is available
    to you. I encourage you to make it public.
        Senator Booker. As you likely know, the second volume of
    Jack Smith's report about the declassified documents case is
    not public yet. To fulfill our constitutional duty of advice
    and consent to the President on nominations, Members of this
    Committee have asked the DOJ to review the report. Do you agree
    that Congress should thoroughly review its nominees? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Booker. Okay.
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Booker. Now, last question and I'll be done. When
    you and I met, you told me that you wanted to remove 11,000 FBI
    personnel or move many of them, and you said that again today.
    You have looked at an org chart to understand what offices and
    functions that you'll be pulling from. I don't think you've
    done a serious analysis. But I do think you have an assignment
    from Donald Trump to gut the FBI. You said yourself, I'll shut
    down the FBI Hoover building. There are people specifically
    that you are targeting, I believe, and do you agree that you
    have already prepared plans to remove certain individuals from
    their offices? For example, individuals that will be replaced
    by political personnel, the political personnel that are being
    put in in an institution that you and I discussed that has no
    political appointees, but one. The political personnel involve
    these names: Erica Knight, Tom Ferguson----
        Chairman Grassley. You've stated your question. Would you
    answer? Or don't you want to? Okay?
        Mr. Patel. We can move on.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Patel,
    there is absolutely no doubt that you have the experience and
    the expertise to lead the FBI, and we welcome you here today.
    We are pleased that you are here. I've been listening to my
    colleagues across the dais and listening to their questions,
    and it has led me to one thing. Why are the Democrats so afraid
    of you?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know, Senator. You'd have to ask them.
        Senator Blackburn. Well, I'll tell you what I think, and
    listening to their questions and your responses, which we
    appreciate, they know that you're going to go in, and you are
    going to clean up that political cabal that has been over there
    for years. You are going to reposition the FBI to its core
    mission. You stated that earlier in this hearing, and there
    will be no more political persecutions and no more two tiers of
    justice. And they have liked having two tiers of justice, they
    have enjoyed it, and it has helped them, they think, in their
    political mission. They've enjoyed targeting Catholics, they've
    enjoyed targeting parents. But the American people have said
    they want no more of that. And our colleagues know you are
    going to clean it up.
        I want to talk to you about the Epstein case. I have worked
    on this for years, trying to get those records of who flew on
    Epstein's plane and who helped him build this international
    human trafficking/sex trafficking ring. Now, earlier, I urged
    then-Chairman Durbin to subpoena those records, and I ended up
    being blocked by Senator Durbin and Christopher Wray. They
    stonewalled on this, and I know that breaking up these
    trafficking rings is important to President Trump. So will you
    work with me on this issue so we know who worked with Jeffrey
    Epstein in building these sex trafficking rings?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely, Senator. Child sex trafficking has
    no place in the United States of America, and I will do
    everything, if confirmed as FBI Director, to make sure the
    American public knows the full weight of what happened in the
    past and how we are going to countermand missing children and
    exploited children going forward.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you for that. I do want to touch
    on the political persecution. I find it so interesting that
    they feel like you would carry out political persecution. Your
    parents are with us today. They fled Uganda and persecution
    from Idi Amin, and I think that with your background and given
    your family's history, that you would never move to political
    persecution. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator, that is.
        Senator Blackburn. And we appreciate that you would remove
    any kind of two tiers of justice from the FBI because they have
    practiced that every day for years--not all FBI agents. There
    are some good ones, and we certainly want to keep them, but the
    politics has got to be moved out of the agency. Now, they've
    tried to frame you as being anti-police. We've discussed that
    some today, and I know that you grew up working with NYPD
    officers in your community, and I know that law enforcement
    groups, including the National Association of Police
    Organizations, have endorsed your nomination, and on top of
    that, your brother is a law enforcement officer. Is that
    accurate?
        Mr. Patel. Many of my family are. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Blackburn. How many of your family, sir?
        Mr. Patel. Well, I guess the Indians have a different
    definition of ``family.'' We got a really big one, and they're
    all family, so----
        Senator Blackburn. We all love big families.
        Mr. Patel. So we got a lot.
        Senator Blackburn. And so I appreciate that, but it is
    accurate to say that in your role, you're going to do
    everything that you possibly can to protect the men and women
    who are protecting our communities.
        Mr. Patel. That is of the utmost importance.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you. I want to go to the Nunes
    memo. You were the principal author of the Nunes memo. Is that
    accurate?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, me and staff.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you. And that did really so much
    to focus the light on the Russiagate hoax and the political
    cabal that was, for years, operated out of the DOJ and the FBI.
    And I know that there are some that felt like that memo was not
    accurate. We know now differently, and I'm quoting a comment
    that was made about that memo and by a Member of that House
    Intel Committee. And I quote, ``It was meant only to give
    Republican House Members a distorted view of the FBI,'' end
    quote. I find it so interesting they use the term ``distorted
    view.'' I think the American people, who, for 4 years under
    Biden, saw the FBI weaponized against them, against parents,
    against people of faith, weaponized against President Trump. I
    think they would disagree with that. Do you stand by the good
    work that you did on the Nunes memo?
        Mr. Patel. Our team, and, yes, absolutely.
        Senator Blackburn. And the Nunes memo was accurate in its
    description of the details. Correct?
        Mr. Patel. As confirmed by the Inspector General, the
    Special Counsel, because the Nunes memo only contains sworn
    information received pursuant to transcribed interviews and
    production of Government materials, including FBI 302s and DOJ
    memorandum.
        Senator Blackburn. So the Nunes memo is accurate?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you for that. In your new role as
    Director, how will you work to root out two tiers of justice at
    the FBI?
        Mr. Patel. The same way I have always done so, ma'am, with
    the utmost fidelity to the Constitution and integrity to law
    enforcement. Government must allow those who are privileged to
    serve to execute their law enforcement duties fully, but at the
    same time, the American people deserve accountability inwards
    to Government to any of those who violate that sacred trust.
        Senator Blackburn. And as you prepare to take this new
    role, what are the top areas of concern for you as we look at
    our national security?
        Mr. Patel. The top areas when it comes to national
    security, ma'am, have remained unchanged, and the threat
    dynamic has increased. It's thwarting terrorist activities and
    terrorist attacks here and overseas against our citizens and
    our allies, and it also includes CCP espionage, which is
    running rampant these last 5 years through our country,
    including our cyberinfrastructure and our agricultural
    properties. And it also includes taking on Iran, the number one
    state sponsor of terror, and any other adversary that wishes to
    harm America.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you. I look forward to a ``yes''
    vote on your confirmation.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Grassley. Oh, yes.
        Senator Durbin. Since the Senator from Tennessee raised my
    name, I'd like to respond.
        Chairman Grassley. Please go ahead.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, while I was Chair of the
    Committee, protecting children from sexual exploitation was one
    of our highest priorities. We chaired hearings on kids' online
    safety, and we decided on a bipartisan basis to call the Big
    Tech CEOs in for an important--maybe historic meeting of this
    Committee. Last year the Committee reported six bipartisan
    bills to help protect child safety online, including one of my
    own, Stop CSAM, and Senator Blackburn's Report Act. In the
    previous Congress, Senator Blackburn and I led legislation that
    was signed into law that eliminated statutes of limitation for
    Federal civil suits by survivors of childhood sex abuse. I've
    worked to ensure the DOJ's unethical non-prosecution agreement
    with Jeffrey Epstein is investigated. As I've argued in this
    Committee, my Inspector General Access Act would allow the
    Inspector General to investigate that.
        Yet, in 2023, I was falsely accused of preventing releasing
    the names of Jeffrey Epstein's network by Mr. Patel when my
    Republican colleagues prevented Senator Blackburn from offering
    an amendment to the flight logs. Prior to the Committee's
    November 9, 2023, Supreme Court ethics subpoenas markup,
    Senator Blackburn had never raised Epstein's flight logs with
    me publicly or privately. During the November 30, 2023, Supreme
    Court ethics subpoena authorization markup, I tried to
    recognize her multiple times, but there was an effort to close
    down the Committee before any further business went forward on
    the Republican side. Many Epstein records, including flight
    logs, have been public for years. My office subsequently
    reached out to hers to try to identify what records she was
    actually seeking. We did not receive a response.
        Senator Blackburn. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to
    Chairman Durbin. I had raised the issue with Chairman Durbin. I
    had raised it on the floor that we wanted to get these records,
    and then during that hearing that you're recognizing, sir, or
    that you're mentioning, I sought recognition. It was not my
    Republican colleagues that ended that hearing. Mr. Chairman,
    you had the gavel, and you were the Chairman, and you sought
    not to recognize me. And I know and you know, and so many
    people are aware, sir, that you and Christopher Wray did not
    want those out. And I know we need to move on for questions,
    but, Mr. Chairman, we have fought this issue for quite some
    time. I look forward to having an FBI that will work to help
    get these records and end this human and sex trafficking in
    this country.
        Senator Durbin. Fifteen seconds?
        Chairman Grassley. Yes. Yes, go ahead.
        Senator Durbin. The Senator from Tennessee knows what the
    2-hour rule is. The 2-hour rule takes the gavel out of the
    Chairman's hands, and that was what was being executed when you
    were seeking recognition and being executed by your side of the
    aisle.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, as we
    know, it's not just the nominee for FBI Director that's before
    us today, but there's been a lot of chaos and confusion this
    week in regards to Executive orders that have been issued as it
    pertains to the Federal budget, Federal spending, hiring
    freezes, et cetera. But relevant to this confirmation hearing,
    colleagues, the FBI has paused its new academy classes while
    they assess how the firing freeze impacts them. President
    Trump's Executive orders has a national security exception, but
    it is unclear how it will apply to agencies like the FBI. The
    FBI has a large civilian employee population, so it's not
    certain if they will qualify for exceptions. The White House
    memo stated that nearly a thousand probationary FBI employees
    would stay--they would stay on only if, quote, ``justified,''
    without clarity on a timetable or process for justification.
        Mr. Patel, how does this help or does this hurt the FBI
    improving public safety in America?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I know about as much as this late-
    breaking news as you do by reading it in the media, and I will
    say the following in terms of FBI employees, if I am confirmed.
    FBI employees represent the frontline of defense for national
    security and crime, and, if I'm confirmed, I will ensure that
    all FBI graduates of the academy will be protected and funded
    so that we can continue the fight together.
        Senator Padilla. But would you agree that even just causing
    a pause or confusion in being able to grow the ranks is not
    helpful to public safety in America?
        Mr. Patel. Yes----
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. Not having a law enforcement
    there----
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Thank you, 7 minutes goes by
    fast, so I want to get to as many topics as I can.
        As you know, the FBI plays a critical role in national
    security and public safety----
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Yet the reports are that the
    hiring freeze is damaging. And I want to submit for the record,
    Mr. Chairman, a New York Times article outlining the questions
    and concerns I just stated.
        Chairman Grassley. Without objection.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Padilla. Now on to the next topic. FBI agents rely
    on their leadership to ensure their safety and success of
    operations. As senior director for counterterrorism at the
    National Security Council, you were involved in a SEAL Team
    rescue mission to recover a 27-year-old American hostage in
    Nigeria. According to former Secretary of Defense's Mark Esper,
    you falsely informed senior leadership that the United States
    had secured permission to fly over other nations' airspace en
    route to Nigeria. This misinformation forced the aircraft to
    circle the border for an additional hour, potentially
    jeopardizing the mission's success and putting service members
    at undue risk. Can you explain your decision to falsely claim
    airspace permissions had been secured for the mission?
        Mr. Patel. I greatly appreciate this. This is one that hits
    home squarely because my guys, my friends were on that
    operation. They were in that helo. They were in that V-22. And
    there's never a time in my career that I would jeopardize the
    safety of the men and women in uniform. And if you ask the
    National Security Advisor of the President of the United
    States, who was with me on that day, who has gone on the record
    publicly, as has General Tony Tata, who's the Undersecretary of
    Defense, they have both stated with affirmation that I acted
    appropriately, relayed all information accurately, and never
    jeopardized the safety of the hostages. And our men were on the
    ground for 59 seconds and executed six sentries, and rescued an
    American hostage named Phil Walton, and he's home today with
    his family because of it.
        Senator Padilla. So your friend's word versus the former
    Secretary of Defense. That's what we're going to be asked to
    consider. Next topic. In September of 2024, just a couple of
    months ago, you stated that, ``Chris Wray was caught illegally
    using 702 collection against Americans 274,000 times''--that's
    a quote. And you criticized Congress for failing to implement
    necessary reforms when reauthorizing Section 702. Now, earlier
    in this hearing, I heard you respond to Senator Cornyn's
    questions and saying that the improvements to FISA 702
    accountability go a long way. That's what you said today--
    earlier on the record and under oath. But on that September
    podcast that I'm referring to, you said that, by passing the
    reauthorization bill, Republicans, quote, ``bent the knee.'' So
    which is it? They bent the knee and didn't reform 702 as you
    would suggest? Or that they've gone a long way?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, as I've talked about extensively with
    my experience with 702, it is a necessary tool to protect this
    country. The FISA Court themselves issued the report you're
    referring to about the illegal searches. They found 270,000-
    some violations. So I think we need it, and I think we need to
    work with Congress to reform it.
        Senator Padilla. Let me rephrase my question more bluntly.
    Which is your opinion on the most recent reauthorization of
    702: That Republicans bent the knee for not insisting or
    adopting significant reforms or that reforms have gone a long
    way? Because they seem like contradictory statements.
        Mr. Patel. 702 is a critical tool, and I'm proud of the
    reforms that have been implemented, and I'm proud to work with
    Congress moving forward to implement more reforms.
        Senator Padilla. So they bent the knee, but now you're
    proud of it. Got it.
        Next topic. I know you've been asked about the J6 prison
    choir, prior, in this hearing. My question is not going to
    rehash previous questions. Funds have been raised, as you
    explained to me in our meeting last week, to support families
    of insurrectionists--my words, clearly not yours--that have
    been in jail, including those who committed acts of violence
    against police officers. I want to note, in any of your work
    around the J6 prison choir, was any of the funds that were
    raised used to support the families of the police officers who
    were brutally attacked by the insurrectionists?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, my foundation has used funds----
        Senator Padilla. Yes or no? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. To help police officers across the
    country.
        Senator Padilla. It's a ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Mr. Patel. I don't know if those officers' families applied
    for a grant. That's how we distribute at a charity----
        Senator Padilla. So, that----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. Based on who contacts us.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. That tells me a lot about
    your care and prioritization of the police officers you claim
    to support because----
        Mr. Patel. We've given away over a half million dollars to
    law enforcement----
        Senator Padilla. But you can't articulate----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. And active duty military.
        Senator Padilla. I mean, you were able to articulate to me
    examples of the families of January 6 insurrectionists because
    the insurrectionists----
        Mr. Patel. Your words, not mine.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Who were in jail were
    supporting their families, but you can't, you know, say clearly
    and confidently that families of police officers who were
    brutally attacked got similar support. Next topic.
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Chairman Grassley. Your time's up.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. I'll save it for the second round.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Schmitt, I have
    a letter that I want to put in, in regard to this Nigerian
    rescue story. It's from General Tata. What people that bring
    this up don't tell you is that General Tata has denied the
    exchange reported in the Atlantic and has forcefully defended
    Mr. Patel. General Tata said, ``I never heard the words that
    somebody's saying they heard from me. That's not a quote from
    me,'' end of quote. General Tata wrote to the Committee and
    said, it was, quote, ``irresponsible,'' end quote, to say Mr.
    Patel ``jeopardized the mission.'' He said, quote, ``Kash
    played a critical role in that and many other successes during
    his tenure precisely because he cares so deeply about America,
    its national domestic security, and her citizens.'' So by
    unanimous consent, I will put this letter in the record. Any
    disagreement? I hear none.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schmitt.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to see
    you, Mr. Patel. It's great to have your family here. I know
    they must be very proud.
        I have to tell you, I saw up close and personal how
    politically weaponized the FBI had become in my former job as
    Attorney General of Missouri. We brought the Missouri v. Biden
    lawsuit, which uncovered this vast censorship enterprise where
    the Federal Government coerced and colluded with some of the
    biggest companies in the history of the world to suppress
    speech. And not just that, actually to pre-bunk the Hunter
    Biden laptop story. The FBI had the laptop in November of 2019.
    They met with senior executives--Yoel Roth, who was the main
    guy at Twitter at the time, signed an affidavit saying they
    were talking specifically about the laptop that could be Hunter
    Biden's--pre-bunking it, calling it a Russian hack and leak
    operation. They knew it was true. They knew it was his laptop.
    So the rot is deep. And the time for you is now, and I'm glad
    because reform is needed.
        Senator Durbin referenced your book. I actually think--I
    think it's a good--everyone should read the book--because I
    want to ask you about some quotes that are in the book because
    a lot's been made of it. Usually just some of the end notes,
    but the content of the book. Did you say in the book,
    ``American justice must never be selective. If the law is
    applied unevenly, democracy crumbles.'' Did you say that?
        Mr. Patel. I did, Senator.
        Senator Schmitt. ``When agencies like the FBI and the CIA
    prioritize politics over truth, the Nation suffers.'' Did you
    say that?
        Mr. Patel. I sure did, Senator.
        Senator Schmitt. ``Accountability isn't optional. Those who
    violate the public trust must face real consequences,
    regardless of their rank or title.'' Did you say that?
        Mr. Patel. I did, Senator.
        Senator Schmitt. Okay. There's a lot more in there, and I
    know that Senator Tillis has got the game of bingo. I'd like to
    play another game: Would You Rather.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Patel. Let's have at it, sir.
        Senator Schmitt. Would you rather the FBI prosecute and
    persecute parents who voice legitimate concerns at school board
    meetings, or should it investigate domestic terrorists who
    commit school shootings and threaten the lives of American
    children?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely investigate, prioritize the safety of
    our children and any actual and real domestic terrorists, as
    I've prosecuted in my past in the Obama Justice Department.
        Senator Schmitt. Would you rather the FBI be weaponized by
    investigating Presidential candidates, political opponents,
    spying on and wiretapping candidates' advisors, or should the
    FBI get back to its core mission and get politics out of the
    FBI?
        Mr. Patel. There should be no politics in the FBI, and
    having been a victim of the weaponization of law enforcement
    against me, I know what that feels like. And, if I'm confirmed,
    I will make sure no American feels that sleight of hand ever
    again.
        Senator Schmitt. Would you rather the FBI target
    traditional Catholics as extremists, or should the FBI focus on
    investigating actual threats posed to the American people by
    cartels pumping fentanyl into our communities through the
    Southern Border?
        Mr. Patel. A hundred thousand deaths due to fentanyl drug
    overdoses in one year. I'd rather the FBI focus on that and
    save our children.
        Senator Schmitt. Would you rather the FBI ignore when thugs
    threaten to harm and plot against Supreme Court Justices, or
    should the FBI actually investigate that and get to the bottom
    of it?
        Mr. Patel. I'm so glad you brought that up, Senator. This
    body passed the law to protect our Justices of the peace,
    including the Supreme Court, and every single Justice of the
    peace deserves that enforcement of that law so they can do
    their duty.
        Senator Schmitt. Would you rather the FBI pressure social
    media companies into censoring conservative viewpoints, or
    should it focus on what the FBI should get back to, which is
    investigating interstate crimes that threaten the well-being of
    Americans?
        Mr. Patel. No censorship. Let's focus on investigating
    interstate crimes.
        Senator Schmitt. Would you rather the FBI raid the home of
    a former President and chief political rival, going through the
    First Lady's personal belongings, spreading out documents on
    the floor staged, or should it raid the homes of terrorists who
    seek to harm citizens?
        Mr. Patel. Let's let our men and in law enforcement kick
    down the doors of terrorists and narco traffickers and
    pedophiles, and put those people in prison where they belong.
        Senator Schmitt. So, I mean, I could go on and on. But let
    me tell you what I think's really going on here. What I think's
    going on here is that the folks on the other side can't
    actually believe and can't come to grips that they're in this
    position right now. That they're in the Minority and that
    President Trump is back in office. Because what they did was,
    after he was out of office, they tried to destroy him. They
    tried to financially ruin him and his family. They tried to
    intimidate him. They tried to throw him in jail for the rest of
    his life. They tried to demonize half the country. Their
    opening and closing argument for the last 4 years has been that
    President Trump and Republicans are a threat to democracy. But
    the American people sat in a jury box, and they watched and
    they weighed the evidence, and they heard all the facts and
    they rendered their own verdict. And their verdict was for
    reform.
        They don't believe that the people who've been doing this
    in these positions have done a particularly good job before.
    They the deck is stacked against them, and they saw how our
    justice system was turned against political opponents in a
    Soviet-style justice system, which moniker was, ``Show me the
    man, and I'll show you the crime.'' You--and by the way, I
    don't think they can believe you're sitting where you're
    sitting at right now. But guess what? You are, and you're going
    to get confirmed, and you're going to lead this agency back to
    what it always should have been, which is to protect the
    American people, to fight crime, to put the bad guys in jail,
    not to execute a political agenda like some Banana Republic
    form of justice where you point to the person on the other side
    that you want taken out and you go do that person's bidding.
        This country was founded on the idea that people could say
    what they wanted, they could believe what they want, and that
    the Government wouldn't come after them. The Government's job
    is not to tell you what you should think, or what you can say,
    or what you can do or what you believe. And this Justice
    Department under Christopher Wray, and under Joe Biden, and
    Merrick Garland has done just that. And that's why the trust
    has plummeted. So you've got a big job. You've got a big, big
    job. But I have all the faith in the world in you that you're
    going to restore that trust because you believe in the rule of
    law, you have an incredible personal story, you're going to get
    confirmed, and I wish you all the best and you have my vote.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Senator, appreciate that.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Just responding--you
    guys won. There was--if you want to call it a jury box, the
    American people elected you, and you're the Majority party in
    the House and in the Senate. You've got that President Trump
    was duly elected. But let me tell you the source of my ongoing
    concern, which I regret it sometimes does not seem to be a
    common concern. We had a catastrophe for our democracy on
    January 6. And you're asserting that you won and you did, and I
    acknowledge it. It troubles me that so many people have
    difficulty saying that Biden won the election. And I listened
    to your response, Mr. Patel, and many of the people who
    congratulated you and your parents on your extraordinary story.
    I share that, so I want you to know that. But what's so hard
    about just saying that Biden won the 2020 election? What's hard
    about that?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, as I've said before, that President
    Biden was certified and sworn in, and he was the President. I
    don't know how else to say it.
        Senator Welch. Well, the other way of saying it is he won.
        Mr. Patel. He was the President.
        Senator Welch. The other way to say it is he won. I can say
    Trump won. I didn't vote for him, but he won. You know, Al Gore
    said Bush won when they were having that recount in Florida.
    And we have had a peaceful transfer of power here in very
    contested elections. And I'll just be very direct with you
    about why I think this is of consequence. When Trump--Donald
    Trump has never acknowledged that he lost in 2020, and he
    invited people to come to the Capitol on January 6 to Stop the
    Steal. And after that happened, police officers died. People
    were injured. It created enormous ongoing bitterness within the
    country and that's your boss. Do you believe that the 2020
    election was stolen as President Trump says it is?
        Mr. Patel. Sir, my opinions on the 2020 election have been
    expressed in this hearing, and he's entitled to whatever
    opinions he wants.
        Senator Welch. If I'm--do you agree with him that the
    election was stolen in 2020?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, millions of Americans have expressed
    concern going back to multiple elections over election
    integrity.
        Senator Welch. You know, you're so skillful. You understand
    what I'm asking you. Can you say the words, ``Joe Biden won the
    2020 election? ''
        Mr. Patel. Joe Biden was the President of the United
    States.
        Senator Welch. Under this: There's a difference. I can say
    the words, ``Donald Trump won.'' I don't like to say it, but I
    must say it. And you cannot say that Joe Biden won the
    election.
        Mr. Patel. What I can say is the same for both of them,
    Senator. Both of their elections were certified, and they are
    both--one was and one now is President.
        Senator Welch. Okay. The reason I have some concerns about
    that, my colleagues on the Republican side, is that whoever is
    the FBI Director--and I suspect it will be Mr. Patel--has a
    boss, and he has strong points of view. He said that Vice
    President Harris was a criminal and should be prosecuted. Is
    that a prosecution you would initiate?
        Mr. Patel. There is no prosecution that the FBI will ever
    initiate because the FBI will only do investigations. And those
    will only be open where there's a factual and constitutional
    basis to do so.
        Senator Welch. He's, he's--your boss has said that General
    Milley who served us with great distinction, I happen to have
    great admiration for, should be tried for treason. Do you agree
    with that?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, everybody's entitled to their opinion.
    The only thing that matters at the FBI is whether the law is
    followed.
        Senator Welch. Okay. I know everybody's entitled to their
    opinion. I'm asking you your opinion. Should General Milley be
    tried for treason?
        Mr. Patel. Vice President Harris, Kamala Harris, or General
    Milley, or anyone otherwise will not be subjected to an FBI
    investigation that doesn't meet the rigorous standards of the
    Constitution.
        Senator Welch. All right. You've talked about your devotion
    to the men and women in the FBI. I accept that. But as you
    know, President Trump used the power of the pardon to let
    people who are cop beaters out of jail. Right? He also let a
    drug dealer out of jail. You're familiar with, or maybe not
    you're not, Ross Ulbricht started the Silk Road on the dark
    web, made millions of dollars selling drugs, providing a
    vehicle by which people could get things that were going to
    kill them, and people died. He also sought a couple of people
    to murder on his behalf because he thought his empire was
    threatened. What is your opinion about Trump pardoning this
    drug dealer-attempted murderer?
        Mr. Patel. My opinion on Presidential pardons is that, one,
    I was not consulted----
        Senator Welch. No, no----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. And two, it's not the province of
    the FBI.
        Senator Welch [continuing]. I'm asking you your opinion
    about Mr. Ulbricht. Should the person who created that dark
    web-drug dealer situation, should he be pardoned, in your
    opinion?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, it's not appropriate for me to speak on
    pardons, but I've spoken out against pardons against cop
    killers and those who do violence to law enforcement----
        Senator Welch. I'm----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. Whether it's President Biden or
    Trump.
        Senator Welch [continuing]. I'm with you on that. Okay? I'm
    with you. I'm with the Chairman over here. But I'm just trying
    to find out on Ulbricht. You're going to be, you know, again,
    bottom line here, you're going to have a tough job, and you're
    going to have a tough boss because he gets it in his mind he
    wants to do something, nothing gets in the way. And there's
    going to come a time when an FBI Director or an Attorney
    General has to make a decision about the Constitution and
    what's being requested. And can that person, at that time when
    the important values of the Constitution are at stake, say
    ``no'' to a person who is insisting you take an action?
        Mr. Patel. And Senator, that's why I think it's time for
    the first time in this country's history that a public defender
    be the next Director of the FBI because no one knows more about
    constitutional due process than PDs.
        Senator Welch. Well, you know you're appealing to mutual
    pride here with the public defender. But you know what? I still
    understand you didn't answer the question. That's the public
    defender in me. Okay? Look, and I say this to my colleagues, we
    cannot have a weaponized Justice Department or FBI, and what's
    weaponized is in the eye of the beholder, like the prosecutions
    of President Trump, and I get that. We cannot, cannot have it.
    But what I think we all have to acknowledge when we've got a
    President who's basically saying a political enemy, whether
    it's Harris, whether it's Liz Cheney, whether it's Adam Schiff,
    should be prosecuted, that's doing damage to the mutual goal we
    have of not weaponizing a department. I yield back.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Patel, thank you so much for being here. To your family, I
    know that this has to be such an incredible moment.
    Congratulations and thank you for making time to be a part of
    this with all of us.
        Look, I have been diligently listening over the last few
    hours, and what I have heard you say is this: that your duty is
    to protect American citizens, that you will work to uphold the
    Constitution. I have heard you say you're going to get back to
    making sure you focus on violent crime. You said, I want
    children to have parks to play in, not needles to walk on. You
    said, I'm going to let cops be cops. You said, we've got to get
    back to having full transparency. You said, all requests will
    be responded to, and for all Members of the Judiciary
    Committee, for that, we say thank you.
        You said, you are going to have the backs, as you always
    have, of law enforcement. You reminded us about being embedded
    in SEAL Team Six. You said, our law enforcement officers
    deserve the very best. You said, you know and you will not
    allow there to be victims of Government overreach because it
    has happened to you. You talked about having no intention of
    going backward. You have talked about making sure that we
    actually address drug overdoses. You talked about your work
    with 1.3 million active duty service members, making sure they
    had resources they needed. You've talked about de-weaponizing
    and making sure that we don't politicize the Department. You
    said, America is the greatest Nation. You said, we
    fundamentally--you believe that because you believe in the rule
    of law.
        You have told me personally gone will be the days of
    identifying a person and looking for a crime. You have said
    everything you do will be factual and constitutionally based.
    You have said there will be no targeting based on someone's
    faith. You have said that when these FBI agents are upholding
    the law, you will always have their back. You have said that
    there will be a singular form of justice once again. And most
    importantly, I think, in addition to all of this, is I have
    really not gotten to hear you talk about the FBI. And so I
    would love--you mentioned in the seven minutes that it takes
    one of these Senators to ask you questions that, unfortunately,
    there are, I believe you said, three rapes, two overdoses, one
    murder.
        Look, yesterday we signed the Laken Riley Act into law,
    President Trump did. And when we look at what's happening
    across our country with the surge of illegal migrants that have
    come in, when we look at fentanyl overdoses being the leading
    cause of death between the ages of 18 and 45, I've heard you
    say you want to tackle that. When we look at parents, like
    Laken Riley's mother yesterday as she talked about her
    heartbreaking loss that should have never happened, Rachel
    Morin's family there, Sarah Root's family there, Jocelyn
    Nungaray's family there, they deserve an FBI that is focused on
    finding these criminals and getting them out of here.
        So my question for you is, I'd like for you to talk about
    that. You've talked about cleaning up America, making it safe
    and secure for its people. Please, tell the American people
    your plans.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Senator. I really appreciate it, and
    the two themes that, if I'm confirmed, that I have for the FBI
    are really just going back to keeping it simple. One, let good
    cops be cops. A hundred thousand drug overdoses, a hundred
    thousand rapes, 17,000 homicides, that's only with 70 percent
    of the precincts reporting in. That is violent crime exploding
    out of control. We've got 38,000 employees at the FBI, and, as
    I alluded to earlier, almost a third of them work in and around
    the Washington, DC, area. Well, those crimes are committed out
    in the rest of America, and I'm going to let good cops be cops
    and put handcuffs on the bad guys, and put child molesters in
    prison, and put murderers in prison, and make sure CCP fentanyl
    doesn't kill another one of your constituents. That's track
    one.
        Track two, to restore the trust in the FBI that has
    degraded, not by my opinion, by the Gallup poll, that only 40
    percent of Americans have trust and faith in the FBI. It is a
    cataclysmic failure in leadership to get to that point--that
    did not happen over time. And so what the FBI must do, while
    tackling violent crime, and protecting Americans, and national
    security, and our sovereignty, is work with Congress--
    Republicans and Democrats, to expose any government corruption,
    provide government accountability through transparency, and get
    you all the documents that you are the custodians of. The FBI
    reports to Congress. If I am confirmed as FBI Director, I will
    report to Congress.
        And will just save for you with this one caveat here about
    my personal experiences with the FBI. The men and women of the
    FBI do the most courageous work on God's green earth. I was
    fortunate enough to utilize FISA 702 national security measures
    to prevent a shopping mall from blowing up in Houston and the
    State capitol from being attacked in California. Courageous men
    and women do that work every day, and these are cases you never
    hear about. Instead, the only things you hear about are the
    baseless conspiracy theories and attacks levied at me. Well,
    here's something for America. You can say whatever you want
    about me. If I'm confirmed, bring it on. But you will not
    denigrate the men and women of the FBI that saved this country.
        Senator Britt. Amen. Thank you, thank you, thank you. And
    speaking of, I want to talk to you a little bit about how
    you're going to make sure that those men and women have the
    opportunity to get out and about throughout the country. And so
    when we look at that, obviously Huntsville, Alabama, to me----
        Mr. Patel. Redstone.
        Senator Britt. Is a Redstone--that's exactly right.
    Redstone Arsenal is a beacon of, you know, what we should look
    at putting our men and women out amongst the very people that
    they serve. And so in my next few minutes, I certainly want to
    talk to you about that. I'll save it for the next three. But
    just finishing up on what's happening at our border.
        We saw under this previous administration that there were
    about, I think, 1.7 million special interest aliens that came
    across our border. I think the House Judiciary Committee put it
    out. That's obviously from the 26 countries that DHS determines
    have the greatest threat here in our Homeland. When you're
    looking at how do you tackle that, so, you know, they're in the
    interior. Additionally, the people on the Terrorist Watch List,
    the hundreds of people that have been released into our
    country, how do you man your men and women to go and find those
    individuals and make sure that our country is safe?
        Mr. Patel. This is going to require a collection of law
    enforcement, what we call ``1811'' agents across the various
    agencies. Specifically HSI and Secretary Noem are going to be
    prioritized with tasking and going after illegals to follow the
    law and the orders issued by the White House. But also at the
    same time, the FBI possesses an enormous amount of resources to
    go into our jails and find those already imprisoned and with
    pending deportation orders, with pending violations of their
    parole status. So if I'm confirmed, the full resources of the
    FBI, where appropriate, will be committed to that cause. But I
    believe primacy rests with other agencies.
        Senator Britt. Excellent, thank you so much.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Mr. Patel, early in this hearing, Senator
    Durbin asked you about the January 6 choir of inmates whose
    song you promoted, and here's what you said: ``I did not have
    anything to do with the recording.'' ``I did not have anything
    to do with the recording.'' Do you stand by that testimony, Mr.
    Patel?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, what I said was I didn't do the
    recording.
        Senator Schiff. You said you didn't have anything to do
    with the recording, which is interesting because here's what
    you told Steve Bannon on his podcast: ``So what we thought
    would be cool is if we captured that audio and then, of course,
    had the greatest President, President Donald J. Trump, recite
    the Pledge of Allegiance. Then we went to a studio and recorded
    it, mastered it, digitized it, and put it out as a song, now
    releasing exclusively on the `War Room'.'' ``We.'' ``We.''
    ``We''--if you had nothing to do with it, Mr. Patel, why did
    you tell Steve Bannon and all his listeners that you did?
        Mr. Patel. That's why it says ``we,'' as you highlighted.
        Senator Schiff. Yes, and you're part of the ``we.'' Right?
    When you say, ``we,'' that includes you. Doesn't it, Mr. Patel?
        Mr. Patel. Not in every instance.
        Senator Schiff. Well, that's new. So when you said, ``we,''
    you didn't really mean you. Is that your testimony?
        Mr. Patel. Not unless you have a new definition for the
    word, ``we.''
        Senator Schiff. Oh, okay. I always thought ``we'' included
    the person who pronounced the word. But maybe not. Well, you
    also said this, Mr. Patel: ``We were able to capture the
    recording, thanks to their courageous singing, and we were able
    to take it to a studio.'' So let me ask you, Mr. Patel, after
    saying, ``we took it to a studio,'' did you take it to a
    studio?
        Mr. Patel. Me personally? No.
        Senator Schiff. After you said that ``we'' digitized and
    recorded it and all that, did you take it to a studio and
    digitize and record it?
        Mr. Patel. Me personally? No.
        Senator Schiff. Okay. So you were lying to Steve Bannon and
    his audience. Is that what you're saying?
        Mr. Patel. No, I was using the proverbial ``we''
    appropriately, as you've identified.
        Senator Schiff. The royal ``we,'' oh, I see. And so you
    certainly promoted the hell out of it, though. Didn't you?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know what that means, but I promoted the
    heck out of raising money for families in need.
        Senator Schiff. With promotions on social media and saying
    you were going to get this to number one of the Billboard's.
    Right, Mr. Patel?
        Mr. Patel. I think it did.
        Senator Schiff. Yes, it did. Yes, it did. Isn't that great?
    People who violently attacked police have a number one song,
    thanks to you, Mr. Patel. That's something to be really proud
    of.
        Mr. Patel. No----
        Senator Schiff. You've claimed--you've claimed, Mr. Patel,
    you didn't know about any of these people in the choir. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Patel. I did not know about the violent offenders, and
    I did not participate in any of the violence----
        Senator Schiff. Oh. So tell me----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. In and around January 6.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Tell me, Mr. Patel, what due
    diligence did you do to find out who was in the choir before
    you promoted their beautiful music--these people who assaulted
    law enforcement? What due diligence did you do?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I didn't record it myself.
        Senator Schiff. So you did no due diligence before you
    promoted this song by these violent felons. Is that what you're
    telling us?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I did not record that myself.
        Senator Schiff. So you're being considered for Director of
    the FBI, and here, you did no diligence to find out whether
    people you were associating with now--the President of the
    United States in song--were convicted of attacking police
    officers. Is that who we want running the FBI? I want you to
    turn around. There are Capitol Police Officers behind you.
    They're guarding us, take a look at them right now. Turn
    around.
        Mr. Patel. I'm looking at you. You're talking to me.
        Senator Schiff. No, no, no, no--look at them. I want you to
    look at them, if you can--if you have the courage to look them
    in the eye, Mr. Patel, and tell them you're proud of what you
    did. Tell them you're proud that you raised money off of people
    that assaulted their colleagues, that pepper sprayed them, that
    beat them with poles. Tell them you're proud of what you did,
    Mr. Patel. They're right there. They're guarding you today.
    Tell them how proud you are.
        Mr. Patel. That's an abject lie, and you know it.
        Senator Schiff. Tell them how proud you are.
        Mr. Patel. I've never, never, ever accepted violence
    against law enforcement. I've worked with----
        Senator Schiff. Oh, no, no----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. These men and women----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. You not only----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. As you know----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Accepted it, you glorified
    it----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. My entire life----
        Senator Schiff. In song, Mr. Patel. You glorified it----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. And I did not make a single dime
    out of it.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. In song. Well, let me ask you
    this----
        Mr. Patel. How about you ask them----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Let me ask you this----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. If I have their backs, and let's
    see about that answer.
        Senator Schiff. Let me ask you this, Mr. Patel. Let me ask
    you this. If an FBI Director promoted a song of people who
    sprayed pepper spray in the face of an FBI agent, would you say
    they were fit to be Director?
        Mr. Patel. Mr. Schiff----
        Senator Schiff. Yes or no? Would they be fit to be
    Director?
        Mr. Patel. I am fit to be the Director of the FBI.
        Senator Schiff. If--if you were the FBI Director and you
    promoted a song with someone who beat an FBI agent with a pole,
    would you say you were fit to be FBI Director?
        Mr. Patel. Mr. Schiff, I am fit to be FBI Director based on
    my 16 years----
        Senator Schiff. And yet you----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. In Government service.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Did all these things, Mr.
    Patel. You can say, oh, I support law enforcement, I decry
    violence against law enforcement. You could say all that. It's
    what you did, Mr. Patel, that matters. It's what you did that
    matters. Well, let me ask you about something else that you
    did, Mr. Patel. Did you claim that Donald Trump declassified
    all the documents at Mar-a-Lago? Did you claim that?
        Mr. Patel. In what proceeding?
        Senator Schiff. To the public--ever? Did you tell anyone
    that Donald Trump declassified all the documents at Mar-a-Lago?
        Mr. Patel. From publicly available information, President
    Trump issued a declassification order on a variety material.
        Senator Schiff. Oh, no, I'm just asking you, did you tell
    the public, did you tell anyone, did you make the claim that
    Donald Trump had declassified those hundreds of classified
    documents that were at Mar-a-Lago? Did you make that claim
    publicly?
        Mr. Patel. From my best of my recollection, I said
    President Trump issued a declassification order to a large
    number of documents.
        Senator Schiff. Yes, and were you present when he
    declassified all the Mar-a-Lago documents?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I'm not saying he declassified all the
    Mar-a-Lago documents. I said----
        Senator Schiff. Oh, so now----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. President Trump declassified a
    large number of documents, and I would hope this Committee and
    the rest of Congress would want to get those documents----
        Senator Schiff. And, Mr. Patel----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. To the American people.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Mr. Patel, before a President
    or anyone declassified documents, wouldn't you want to know
    whether making them public would cause sources to be killed?
    Wouldn't you want to know that before you just declare they're
    all declassified? Wouldn't that be the responsible thing for a
    President to do?
        Mr. Patel. It was the responsible thing for us to do.
        Senator Schiff. And did----
        Mr. Patel. That's why we declassified----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. And did----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. The Nunes memo.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. And did Donald Trump
    declassify----
        Mr. Patel. And no one died.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. And did Donald Trump ever ask
    any of the agencies who produced those documents whether
    declassifying them would put people's lives at risk? Did he
    ever do that, to your knowledge, Kash Patel?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know that he didn't. Do you?
        Senator Schiff. No. That's the problem. Isn't it? That's
    the problem. Isn't it? So let me just ask, Mr. Chairman, if you
    would, Mr. Patel has said he has no problem. He would support
    the release of his grand jury testimony. In that case, I would
    ask you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, to join me in
    requesting, with Mr. Patel's approval, the release of those
    grand jury transcripts. And I would also ask, Mr. Patel,
    whether you support the release of Volume 2 as it pertains to
    you of the Special Counsel's report. Any reference to you in
    the report, to your truthfulness, will you support the release
    to this Committee of those sections of Volume 2 of Special
    Counsel's report?
        Mr. Patel. I support following the law and providing
    whatever information the law requires.
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Schiff. You said to The Wall Street Journal that
    you support transparency. Here's your chance, Mr. Patel.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Do you support release of that
    to this Committee? Yes or no?
        Chairman Grassley. Senator, time's up. Before I call on
    Senator Tillis, I have letters here from law enforcement groups
    representing 310,000 officers supporting Mr. Patel's
    nomination, and they'd be the Association of Police
    Organizations--National Police Association, United Federation
    of Police Officers, Police Benevolent Association, United
    Coalition for Public Safety. I'll put these in the record.
        [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Patel,
    thanks for being here. I want to thank my colleague, Senator
    Welch, for being so measured and respectful in the way that he
    engaged with you. I just want to cover a few things, and I
    don't know if it'll take 7 minutes or not.
        I want to go back to the ``we versus I,'' since it was the
    last discussion. Other people may not have been paying
    attention. I've only missed Senator Booker's questions. But in
    your exchange with my colleague from one of my former States
    that I lived in, Louisiana, he repeatedly said, ``you'' with
    respect to preparing a memo or documents, and you repeatedly
    said, ``we.'' So you are somebody who's not like a lot of
    people around here that say ``I'' a lot, even though it was the
    ``we'' that got things done. So I for one appreciate how you
    focus on that.
        Now, let's talk about how things change over time. I don't
    know if the Presidential candidate Clinton ever claimed that
    President Trump was legitimately elected. I know that Stacey
    Abrams never really, I think, allowed or acknowledged that
    Governor Kemp was Governor until the second time she lost. I
    don't know what's wrong with you simply saying that President
    Biden is duly elected. Now, I believe that Senator Welch is
    asking for a legitimate reason. But most people aren't. Most
    people are going to say, now we got you. Now we're going to
    create a wedge between you and the President and other people
    by using that word that they can absolutely exploit. So you've
    answered the question, President Biden was duly elected. I
    don't have any problem with saying he won because I certified
    the election along with so many others on January the 6th.
        Now, let me talk about January the 6th. But you all may not
    know this, I don't know if it's public--I can't imagine why
    it'd be classified--this was the room that we retreated to on
    January the 6th. I was the last Senate Member out of the
    Chamber. I was actually approached by one of the Vice
    President's detail saying it's time to go. Part of it was
    because I was really angry in a little way--wanting to fight,
    which was probably not a good idea. But what I saw and what I
    saw for these people, and it's unfair to tell you to get up,
    order you to physically get up and turn around. It's a great
    tactic used frequently here in the Committee, but you were
    right to engage the Senator respectfully in the line of
    questioning.
        I looked at all the ones who were in the Chamber on January
    the 6th, and they were heroes. I looked at the ones after I
    transcended down the stairs and went into the trains connecting
    the Capitol. Those heroes were bloody, they were bruised, and
    they were still holding the line, and we saw and heard people
    50 yards away. Every one of those people in the Capitol I've
    said were thugs, and I don't apologize for it. They were either
    caught up in the moment and didn't do damage to a police
    officer, or they harmed a police officer. And I disagree
    absolutely, and said it on the Senate floor, with the pardons
    of people who did harm to the President. And I've had
    conversations with you that suggest that if you had been
    consulted on that, we'd have probably had a little bit
    different structure for the pardons, folks. This man
    understands what happens when the leadership of a law
    enforcement agency fails to protect their own.
        And I have to admit that in the last administration, I saw
    a Commander-in-Chief who looked the other way when you
    should've been saying the people who were mostly peaceful
    protestors in Kenosha with a building burning in the
    background, well, they had a righteous cause--so it's okay if
    they harm law enforcement or public safety officers. And when
    they damaged the Federal building in Portland and they harmed
    police officers there, I didn't see anybody calling for arrest
    in the insurrection in those Government buildings--those
    Federal buildings.
        Folks, let's be consistent, because I am. I said it then
    and I said it now. These folks are heroes. They got us to this
    room. We spent hours here, and they were so successful with
    securing this building, we went back the same day and finished
    our job. That only happened because of these proud law
    enforcement officers, and I know you would support them.
        Okay. Let me take a breath. You answered the question on
    Section 702, but I have to refer to my friend, Alex Padilla. We
    co-chair the Mental Health Caucus together. I love working with
    him. One of the problems around here with people who pretend
    like they're bipartisan but they never do it when it's hard, is
    that they also make it more difficult for other people. When
    Section 702 was reauthorized in April 2024, we had four or five
    of our Members agree to walk the plank to make sure that the--
    and I didn't, by the way, because I wanted the reforms done.
    But I have to say I'm glad that they did because I just had a
    colleague say they were guilty of bending a knee. What they
    were guilty of is protecting this Nation.
        Now, were they happy that the reforms weren't done? No.
    I've heard John Cornyn say, thanks, Mike Lee's got a lot--
    Senator Lee, Senator Cornyn, they've got a lot of great ideas
    and we should reform it. But that's what's wrong with this
    place, folks. We just had somebody here trying do an offhanded
    hit on people that, on a bipartisan basis, reauthorize
    something that's critically important for keeping this Nation
    safe. So I guess the inference is next time, don't do that. Be
    partisan. Go dark. Endanger the U.S. So come on, guys. Let's be
    real here. If anything, I hope I've been consistent. Now, let's
    just be balanced. You know. Really? You've had colleagues--
    we've had colleagues on the other side of the aisle call
    President Trump an illegitimate President. Now, the witness has
    acknowledged that President Biden's election was certified. If
    you want him to use a specific word, what are we, in high
    school? I mean, come on. So I do have to tell you though, Kash,
    I've hit bingo a couple of times----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Tillis [continuing]. And I have a feeling by the
    time we get to the third round, we will again.
        Mr. Patel. Hope you put a lot of money on it, Senator.
        Senator Tillis. I--you know what--you know what I put a lot
    of--I won't call it money, but capital on? Is the due diligence
    I've done on you and the extraordinary job you're doing in this
    Committee. One of the reasons you're seeing frustration among
    people asking you questions is you're composed. You're
    respectful. You reached out to every one of them and asked to
    meet with them. They've thanked you for doing that. I suspect
    that those conversations went a lot better than the TV
    personalities that we've seen today.
        So, you've got--I've got 50 minutes. You want to wrap up
    on--and I'm going to come back for the second round. You want
    to wrap up on--let me just ask you this question. I went to the
    floor yesterday to make it very clear, I've been thanking these
    Capitol Police Officers, and I told them I thought--I actually
    thought that the partisan people who did harm to police
    officers sucked. And I told them that at every one of these
    security entrances when I come in, and I stand by it, and I
    respectfully disagree with the President or whoever likely gave
    him advice because the President has to rely on best advice for
    some of these Executive orders. But I make no apology for
    saying that the men and women on Capitol Hill that got us
    safely to this building are heroes. The people who harmed them
    are thugs. But they're out now. So here's their opportunity,
    Mr. Patel. You find the people that you were convicted of
    harming, call them, write them a letter, apologize to them. And
    if you don't and you come to Capitol Hill, I will track you
    down and I will burden you until you do. Now I've run out of
    time----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Tillis [continuing]. I'll be back for a second
    round.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Moody.
        Senator Moody. Well, thank you, Chairman. I appreciate
    that, and thank you for being here. I know this has been a long
    day. I am the junior-most Senator, so, you know, I go last. But
    ever since I got here--and it's been a whole week--I get told
    two things when I rush up to my fellow Senators: Number one,
    ``Are you Senator Britt? ''
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Moody. And number two, ``You know the Senate is a
    body that is deliberative and calm''--and I'm anything but. So
    I don't know how the next couple years is going to look. But I
    hope that they'll bear with me.
        Serving as the AG over the last 4 years, I've seen a lot of
    things out of these agencies that I never thought we'd see in
    the United States of America. I know my fellow attorneys
    general around the Nation would agree with me. In fact, some of
    them are here today to support you. I'd love to introduce them
    if they'll stand up: the Attorney General from South Carolina,
    the former Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes--I'm sorry, Alan
    Wilson, I didn't say your name, South Carolina AG, and
    Louisiana AG Liz Murrill. They were--they joined me. Thank you
    for being here. They joined me in signing onto a letter
    supporting your nomination, and we did that while I was still
    the attorney general over a week ago. They came here today to
    support you.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I know that you've been referencing a
    lot of letters that you've been entered into evidence. I'd like
    this to be entered into the record--sorry, I'm talking like a
    trial lawyer--with consent, please, sir. This is signed by 24
    States' attorneys general that support the nomination of Mr.
    Patel.
        One of the things that I have been most upset about is
    watching Federal agencies take more and more and more power and
    step all over the dual sovereignty of State and local law
    enforcement in investigations and prosecutions. I know you,
    like me, served in both the State criminal justice system and
    the Federal criminal justice system. I was a Federal
    prosecutor, a State judge, and a State attorney general, and I
    know you crossed over those jurisdictions. Do I have your
    commitment as the Director of the FBI that you will respect
    dual sovereignty of the Federal Government, the FBI, to pursue
    its investigations of Federal laws, and respect local and State
    law enforcement pursuing violations of their own laws, even
    when there may be overlap of investigations?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, not only do you have my commitment, if
    you may, for the first time ever, the National Sheriff's
    Association has endorsed the nominee to be the Director of the
    FBI. Thirty-one hundred sheriff's deputies across the country
    have endorsed me for one reason, I think, primarily: because
    I'm committed to local-level law enforcement and State
    jurisdiction. Washington, DC, cannot fix the problems of this
    country, but everyday cops can and do it every single day. And
    so if I'm confirmed as FBI Director, we're going to work with
    local law enforcement because they're going to tell us what
    they need, and we're going to give them everything we can. But
    we are not going to trample on local law enforcement because
    they're ones keeping our communities safe just as much as
    anyone here.
        Senator Moody. The citizens of Florida will be happy to
    hear that, as well as Americans. As you know, after the second
    assassination attempt which took place in the State of Florida
    against a Florida resident, now President Donald Trump, many
    people were surprised that that could happen in just over 2
    months. Many people were shocked that a would-be assassin could
    get that close to a President after it had just happened so
    quickly. So needless to say, many Americans, and certainly
    Floridians, demanded a transparent and accountable
    investigation of that second assassination attempt.
        I was tasked, along with law enforcement in Florida, to
    pursue that investigation, and every step of the way, Federal
    law enforcement, the FBI specifically, and the attorneys--
    Federal attorneys frustrated our efforts, told us we couldn't
    go on the crime scene. They wouldn't share evidence. They
    suggested that we would be violating the law if we pursued our
    own investigation, even in the face of us telling them and
    informing them that a 6-year-old girl almost died as a result
    of State and local law enforcement having to shut down the
    roads to pursue that would-be assassin. And I'm not going to
    use his name. In an unprecedented action, because of these
    frustrated efforts, I, as the Attorney General of Florida, had
    to sue the DOJ and Merrick Garland because they refused and
    obstructed our ability to prosecute and investigate our own
    laws against one of our own citizens, even in the face of such
    distrust of the FBI, who was pursuing an investigation against
    the victim himself.
        So, at a time when you have data that shows that Americans'
    trust in the FBI is at its lowest point in history, when the
    FBI is not trusted by local and State law enforcement, can you
    think of a better time for the FBI to say, yes, Florida
    investigators, come in, let's work this together, not to the
    detriment of the investigation, but in a collaborative effort?
    Can you think of a better time to have done that rather than
    hide behind some law that they said prevented us from moving
    forward with our own investigation?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, off the top of my head, I can't, but
    let me just say this. Law enforcement is not supposed to be
    territorial. Law enforcement is not supposed to be a turf
    battle. Law enforcement is best done in this country when it's
    complementary, and it should've been done in that instance.
        Senator Moody. Do I have your commitment--now mind you, I'd
    like to enter into the evidence--the record--I'm sorry--the
    complaint that we filed against Merrick Garland, the complaint
    for declaratory and injunctive relief. This was a result of the
    FBI obstructing our investigation at every turn. Do I have your
    commitment that as soon as you are confirmed, which I believe
    you will be, that you will address this suit, interface with
    the investigators and the lawyers in Florida, and begin
    cooperating with us so that we might pursue justice for that
    little girl?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Moody. And I'll just finally end with, yes, I have
    had a lot of work experiences, as you have, working on the
    front lines with law enforcement to go after those violating
    laws. But I'm also the wife of a law enforcement agent,
    Federal--now local. We need somebody at the helm that
    understands the mission is to stand on that line between good
    and evil, between crime and chaos. There is no other mission,
    and we trust that you're going to right-size this agency and
    set it back on course, and I am proud to support you.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Is there any objection among the
    Committee for her request to insert things in the record? I
    hear none, so ordered.
        [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Now we start our second round, 3 minutes
    each one.
        I've spoken on this issue many times. I may have even
    discussed it with you in my office. The FBI's Foreign Influence
    Task Force inappropriately briefed me and Senator Johnson. That
    briefing was later used to falsely tie our Biden family
    investigation to--you can expect it, Russian disinformation.
    Our investigation was based on records from both the Obama and
    the Biden administrations, along with various bank records.
    Over 4 years later, the FBI has yet to provide us the
    underlying intelligence that they said formed the basis for the
    briefing. So if confirmed, I want you to work with me to
    finally get to the bottom of what happened here, including
    providing me and Senator Johnson with related records.
        Mr. Patel. You have that commitment, Senator, if confirmed.
        Chairman Grassley. The Defund the Police movement and other
    anti-law enforcement rhetoric has reduced morale among law
    enforcement, and maybe some of that's carried over to the FBI.
    I don't know. But what will you do at the FBI to help improve
    morale and increase retention of the brave men and women
    serving at the FBI, or in law enforcement generally?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I think the answer dovetails with the
    mission set of the FBI. In order to increase recruitment, in
    order to maintain the force capacity at the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation, we need to incentivize police officers and good
    cops to be cops, to let them get out there and do the mission
    that they signed up to do, which is protect our community
    against gang violence, against rapists, against thugs, against
    murderers, against terrorists. And I will prioritize, if
    confirmed, every resource that we have to make sure the 1811s
    in the field and the FBI staff are dedicated to that mission
    set alone. And if we achieve that with the work of
    congressional transparency, then I believe the retention rates
    and the enrollment rates at the FBI will skyrocket.
        Chairman Grassley. You spent 10 years in public defending.
    What's the biggest lesson you took away from that experience?
        Mr. Patel. The awesome powers of the United States
    Government when bearing down against an individual charged with
    some very serious crimes--some heinous crimes, and the biggest
    lesson is twofold. One, that the defense has a right--every
    defendant has a right to constitutional due process, and not a
    piece of it, but all of it, a hundred percent, every single
    day. And on the other side, there needs to be a measured action
    that follows constitutional due process and doesn't violate the
    civil liberties of those that we are seeking to hold against
    violations of law. And that balance is one of the most
    important lessons I learned as both a public defender and a
    national security prosecutor at the Department of Justice.
        Chairman Grassley. Eighty years ago, Attorney General
    Robert Jackson said something like being a prosecutor is the
    most powerful office in the country because he's got the power
    to ruin people, if you want to ruin people. You've probably
    been up against some of that.
        Mr. Patel. I have.
        Chairman Grassley. Yes. What you've mentioned--my time's
    up, I guess. Yes, it's your turn.
        Senator Durbin. Finish your question.
        Chairman Grassley. Well, you brought up public trust at 41
    percent, so in a general way, without going for an hour, tell
    me what you're going to do to increase the public trust to the
    FBI.
        Mr. Patel. Simple. Make sure we don't have a hundred
    thousand rapes in this country next year. Make sure we don't
    have a hundred thousand drug overdoses from Chinese fentanyl
    and Mexican heroin. And make sure we don't have 17,000
    homicides. Those numbers need to be cut in half immediately,
    and the public will regain trust in the FBI and law
    enforcement, once we achieve that mission.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Patel, I have three or four things, and
    I'll try to get through them quickly. First is this, when it
    comes to the issue of violence in politics, I personally
    believe it has no place in politics, whether it's violence
    against Donald Trump at the Butler County Fairgrounds or
    violence against Nancy Pelosi's husband in her home. Period.
    And those people who--Proud Boys or whatever the heck they call
    themselves--have no place in this country, as far as I'm
    concerned, if they espouse violence in any form. Do you agree?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. Let the record show we actually agreed on
    something. Number two, the reason why we keep asking, which may
    sound a little silly to the audience here, why are we so
    concerned about this choir singing a song? What's that got to
    do with anything? The question is who are you going to care
    about? Who are you going to help? Are you going to help those
    victims of January 6, the policemen and their families, or are
    you going to help people who were arrested for assaulting them?
    I think the J6 choir looks like a tribute to them,
    characterizing them as political prisoners and unlucky, and
    just patriotic people who may have gotten out of hand. Do you
    see the difference?
        Mr. Patel. Excuse me, sir. I can appreciate the difference,
    but I think my track record shows which side I fall on.
        Senator Durbin. Well, that's why we keep asking you. What
    do you do with the money that you get from this music and who
    do you give it to? And you've really kind of ducked and dodged
    and said I'm not aware of this, I had nothing to do with it----
        Mr. Patel. No, we actually gave all the money--nobody made
    any money. All proceeds went through a 501(c)(3).
        Senator Durbin. I'm talking about the creation of the
    musical work.
        Mr. Patel. Yes. All the money----
        Senator Durbin. No, I'm----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. All the profits went to nonviolent
    offenders' families and other groups in need.
        Senator Durbin. The point I'm getting to is not what
    happens to the proceeds, but who created this musical
    masterpiece? Who was in on this creation? Who they chose to be
    the members of the choir. And you profess to know nothing about
    that. Is that true?
        Mr. Patel. I did not have any participation in the
    recording.
        Senator Durbin. Well, it's going to be difficult to
    understand how you can disburse the money and have nothing to
    do with the recording. Let me ask you about one of the
    conspiracy theories--one of the major ones that I've heard you
    associated with, and that is whether or not the FBI planned
    January 6. Why did you say that?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I appreciate the opportunity to address
    that. That's not what I said. The entirety of the statement
    attributes my conclusion, based on the public record, that the
    FBI utilized sources in and around January 6, and the Biden
    Inspector General confirmed just that.
        Senator Durbin. So it's ``Kash's Corner,'' and the date is
    December--I can't read the writing, it's so small here--it
    looks like it's December 2020. And ``What did the FBI know
    before January 6? '' and you said, ``What was the FBI doing
    planning January 6 for a year? '' I want to send this down to
    the desk so he gets a chance to look at it. Why did you say
    that?
        Mr. Patel. I----
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Did you think the FBI was
    really planning January 6 for a year?
        Mr. Patel. Actually, Senator, I'm grateful--I'm glad,
    grateful that you raised this point. And you should watch the
    entirety of the episode.
        Senator Durbin. I don't want to----
        Mr. Patel. This is the problem with taking snippets.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Do that.
        Mr. Patel. Well, let me inform you then. What it says is,
    it raises an interrogatory asking why Government resources were
    utilized. I've run resources and sources at the FBI. I've run
    sources overseas. It takes months for source developmental
    networks.
        Senator Durbin. What resources were utilized a year in
    advance of planning January 6?
        Mr. Patel. That's the question I'm asking, and the Biden
    Inspector General report answered that question in the
    affirmative that multiple sources were utilized, and I was
    simply trying to get to that answer.
        Senator Durbin. What the Inspector General came back with
    was, quote, ``There is no evidence that the FBI had undercover
    employees in the various protest crowds or at the Capitol on
    January 6.''
        Mr. Patel. And there----
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. No evidence there.
        Mr. Patel. Is a huge distinction between undercover
    employees and sources. I know because I ran them. And anybody
    in law enforcement knows that, too.
        Senator Durbin. So you think the FBI was planning January 6
    for months ahead of time?
        Mr. Patel. Once again, that's not what I said.
        Senator Durbin. It's--well, read your own words. Maybe
    that's a good starting point. I'd just say one last thing.
    We've talked a lot about fentanyl and stopping it from coming
    into the United States. If you are successful in becoming head
    of the FBI, I'll wish you good luck and do everything I can to
    help you. But don't forget there is traffic moving in the
    opposite direction. What are we sending back to Mexico and to
    cartels? Money and guns.
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Durbin. Money and guns. Please look at the whole
    equation. We've got to deal with all aspects of it.
        Mr. Patel. That's a great point. I will, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. I yield.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Mr. Patel, I've been pleased to hear a
    bipartisan concern echoed in this hearing: bipartisan
    opposition to the political weaponization of government,
    including and especially involving the FBI. I'm also encouraged
    by comments that you've made, quite consistently on this front,
    being opposed to political weaponization. The National
    Sheriffs' Association has weighed in recently expressing
    concern with the safety and security of our country based on
    what they refer to as the law enforcement policies over the
    last 4 years. Let me read you what they said. They said they're
    concerned that, quote, ``the law enforcement policies of the
    last 4 years have undermined the rule of law and burdened our
    Nation with great risk and vulnerability,'' closed quote. What
    do you make of that statement? What are they referring to
    there?
        Mr. Patel. Could you just repeat the end of that?
        Senator Lee. Yes, they said they're concerned that, quote,
    ``the law enforcement policies of the last 4 years have
    undermined the rule of law and burdened our Nation with great
    risk and vulnerability.''
        Mr. Patel. Senator, my assessment of that is that they are
    referring to some people in positions of leadership that have
    politicized the law enforcement mission, and we have spent--I
    have spent a career removing politics from law enforcement. And
    that's what the National Sheriffs' Association is all about,
    and I believe that's why they endorsed me as a nominee, for the
    first time ever.
        Senator Lee. So that's why they like you. That's why they
    support you. That's why they've chosen to come out fully in
    support of your nomination, of getting you confirmed because
    you share that view--a view that has been expressed by nearly
    every Member of this Committee today, I would add. And this
    group, a very large group of law enforcement officials from
    throughout the United States of America, has come in in support
    of you because of that. As they do that, they express
    confidence in you, specifically, and in your ability, in
    particular, to bring back, quote, ``transparency, integrity,
    collaboration, and commitment to excellence within the FBI.''
    Tell me what you'll do in order to do that and how you'll
    commit to work with other law enforcement, both within the FBI,
    elsewhere within the Federal Government, and with State and law
    enforcement officials, to bring that back.
        Mr. Patel. Senator, the only way to truly remove
    weaponization and politicization from law enforcement is to
    follow the Constitution. And if you look at the FBI's website,
    and their mission statement, and their core values, each has
    eight. And the eighth and last core value of the mission
    statement on the FBI's website right now is fighting violent
    crime. That needs to be number one. The eighth core value out
    of all core values on the FBI's website right now is rigorous
    obedience to the Constitution. That needs to be number one.
    Reorienting these policies with an effective leadership in
    place to follow the law will allow us to achieve a singular
    standard of constitutional law enforcement. And that is the
    only way you remove the weaponization from politics--excuse me,
    from law enforcement. And that's what the sheriffs are talking
    about, and that's what cops are talking about.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator----
        Senator Lee. If men and women were angels, we wouldn't need
    government. If we had angels to govern us, we wouldn't need a
    Constitution. We're not angels. We don't have access to them.
    So we got to follow the rules, and that's your top job. I
    appreciate your support for the Constitution.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Patel, you supposedly know
    something about grand juries. I just went to the DOJ website to
    get language.
        Mr. Patel. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Whitehouse. I'm quoting it: ``Federal Rule of
    Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits most persons present during
    the proceedings from disclosing what transpired inside the
    grand jury room. However, the proscription does not apply to
    witnesses.'' Do you now, as a grand jury witness, authorize
    this Committee access to a transcript of your own testimony?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I authorize this Committee to get
    whatever is appropriate and lawful, as I've said before.
        Senator Whitehouse. Specifically including the transcript
    of your grand jury testimony----
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Which you have the
    authority to authorize us to obtain?
        Mr. Patel. Well, I don't know if I singularly have that
    authority. I don't think that's how grand jury testimony works.
        Senator Whitehouse. You do.
        Mr. Patel. The Department of Justice----
        Senator Whitehouse. You do because you are the witness. You
    can do that.
        Mr. Patel. There's also a court order on that case, sir.
        Senator Whitehouse. Separately, you can get grand jury
    testimony by court order. The witnesses can always reveal their
    grand jury testimony. Do you authorize us to get access to your
    testimony?
        Mr. Patel. I authorize this Committee to lawfully obtain
    any records that they're appropriately allowed to get.
        Senator Whitehouse. And we are only--you're speaking in
    circles now because we're only lawfully authorized to get that
    with your permission as the witness. Do you give us that
    permission?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I'm not an expert on this
    constitutional standard, and so----
        Senator Whitehouse. It's not----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. I can't commit to something that I
    don't know.
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. It's not expert. It's like
    super simple. Grand Jury Rule 6(e) doesn't apply to witnesses.
    This is not hard. You are a witness. That is a simple fact.
        Mr. Patel. I'm just relying on my time----
        Senator Whitehouse. You can authorize us to see it.
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. As a prosecutor where grand jury
    witnesses were not allowed to share what they were testifying
    to, and when I was commissioned before the judge----
        Senator Whitehouse. Grand jury witnesses are allowed to
    speak about what they were told----
        Mr. Patel. Well----
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. In the--about what they
    said in the grand jury, unless they're under a specific court
    order. Are you under a specific court order not to reveal your
    testimony in the grand jury----
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I can't----
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Right here, right now?
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. I can't go into court orders
    granted by the D.C. District chief judge.
        Senator Whitehouse. If they apply to you, of course you
    can.
        Mr. Patel. You want me to violate a court order?
        Senator Whitehouse. You're saying that there's a secret
    court order in which you can't tell whether you're subject to a
    court order or not?
        Mr. Patel. I'm telling you that if you find the applicable
    court order and it permits this request----
        Senator Whitehouse. I don't need a court order if you give
    authorization.
        Mr. Patel. I'm not the one that has the authority to that.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes, you are--as a witness. You're just
    wrong on that. Second, the FBI has records related to the
    criminal investigations of Donald Trump. Will you protect those
    records in a manner consistent with ordinary FBI document
    preservation practices as head of the FBI?
        Mr. Patel. All records will.
        Senator Whitehouse. No destruction of documents to please
    Trump?
        Mr. Patel. No. I think he put forth a memo saying all
    records must be preserved.
        Senator Whitehouse. Good.
        Chairman Grassley. Are you done?
        Senator Whitehouse. Time's up.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, did
    you listen to what my colleague, Senator Welch, had to say
    about politicizing the FBI and the Department of Justice?
        Mr. Patel. I did, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. I did, too. I always listen when Senator
    Welch speaks, and he's right. But here's where we find
    ourselves today, and you can put an end to this for better or
    worse, either in reality or perception. In modern times the FBI
    has been politicized, or at least there's an appearance. It
    started with Mr. James Comey. He publicly investigated the
    political nominee of both major parties, Guinness Book of World
    Records. He publicly investigated both Donald Trump and Hillary
    Clinton, held a press conference, hurt that agency more than I
    will ever know--I wouldn't put Mr. Comey in charge of a ham
    sandwich. And so did Peter Strzok. And so did Lisa Page. And so
    did Michael Sussmann and the person who gave him, a Hillary
    Clinton lawyer, a pass to roam around the Department of Justice
    and the FBI at will. And so did the prosecutors who tried to
    slip by a two-misdemeanor plea deal for the President's son.
    And it hurts me to say this, but so did Attorney General
    Garland.
        For the first time in the history of ever, Attorney General
    Garland chose to prosecute a former President of the United
    States. And this part is really special. He did it after the
    former President of the United States announced that he would
    be a candidate against his, Attorney General Garland's, boss.
    Forget the merits. We can argue those all day long. You
    understand the perception. It's got to end now. The seal has
    been broken. We've got to stop it now. Don't go over there and
    burn down that agency. You go over there and lift it up, clean
    it out. But lift it up in accordance with due process and the
    rule of law because Senator Welch is right. This has got to end
    now.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Mr. Patel, our
    agencies, in particular, the FBI and DOJ, critically rely on
    Inspectors General and General Counsels for advice. As Chair
    Grassley and many of us have long recognized Federal agencies
    rely on the independent oversight of Inspectors General and
    agencies depend on the legal advice of offices of General
    Counsel. And, as you've testified today, it's your intention to
    lead the FBI within the boundaries of law and the Constitution.
    Last week, President Trump fired more than a dozen Inspectors
    General and provided no notice to Congress. We passed a law in
    2022 requiring the President to provide Congress with a
    substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific
    reasons, 30 days before the removal of any IG. How many days
    has President Trump been in office?
        Mr. Patel. Sorry, Senator. Approximately 10.
        Senator Coons. Ten. Is it possible to give 30 days' notice
    in 10 days?
        Mr. Patel. I'm not great at math, but it doesn't sound like
    it. It doesn't.
        Senator Coons. It doesn't. You're an attorney. Did Trump
    violate--facially violate this law in terms of the timing of
    the firing of the Inspectors General?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I'm not going to entertain a
    hypothetical on legal violations, but I will look into all
    possible legal violations referred.
        Senator Coons. I'll simply say that for those of us
    concerned about the quality and the duration of service of
    Inspectors General, this was troubling, and, frankly, I think
    it is a facial violation of a law passed by Congress. In
    September 2023, on ``The Great America Show,'' a podcast, you
    said, and I believe I'm quoting accurately, ``All these General
    Counsel's offices throughout every agency and department need
    to be slashed in half because these lawyers just come in there,
    and they come in there to slow down and paralyze the movement
    of the America First Agenda.'' Mr. Patel, does that comment
    suggest that, if confirmed, it would be your intention to fire
    the career civil servants, the lawyers in the FBI's General
    Counsel Office?
        Mr. Patel. No.
        Senator Coons. Could you give us any reassurance that it
    would be your intention to listen to the advice and counsel of
    the Inspector General of the Department and the General Counsel
    of the agency?
        Mr. Patel. With addressing those in order, Senator, with
    IGs, as you know, I believe and have shown throughout this
    proceeding that IGs have provided invaluable service in
    Republican and Democratic administrations. And I think they're
    critical and we must have competent IGs going forward.
    Similarly, with General Counsels' offices who are stocked with
    career employees, those employees must continue their work so
    long as no employee politicizes the work and mission of the
    FBI.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. My core concern about these
    firings of the IGs, about the independence of the agency, have
    not been fully satisfied. I appreciate your answers here today,
    but I remain concerned by your previous statements and your
    answers here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Before I recognize Senator Cruz, I have
    some unanimous consent requests.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I have two letters here. I'd
    ask you unanimous consent they be entered into the record. One
    is from William Webster, FBI Director under Presidents Carter
    and Reagan, and CIA Director under Reagan and Bush. He's in the
    audience and another from 23 Republican former law enforcement
    officials. These are letters in opposition to the nomination.
        Chairman Grassley. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, in the
    first round of questioning, you and I talked about the
    politicization and weaponization of the FBI and the Department
    of Justice. That has significant negative consequences in terms
    of undermining trust in the FBI and the Department of Justice,
    and abusing the power of the FBI and the Department of Justice.
    But it also has consequences in that it diverts resources at
    the FBI and DOJ from urgent law enforcement and national
    security priorities. I will tell you when I go back home to
    Texas, I am somewhat regularly asked by Texans should we
    abolish the FBI. Now, my answer to that is an emphatic no. The
    FBI has a critical mission of stopping bad guys, whether serial
    killers, or human traffickers, or child molesters, or
    terrorists. But it says something that a sizable percentage of
    America has so lost faith in the Bureau that they believe it
    should be shut down.
        I think allowing the FBI to be politicized has resulted in
    far too little attention being placed on very serious national
    security risks that we face right now, including for the last 4
    years, as a result of the open borders, that we've had over 12
    million illegal immigrants that have come into this country.
    And I believe, as a consequence of that, we face a greater risk
    today of a major terrorist attack than we have at any time
    since September 11, 2001. You have well over a decade of
    experience in national security and law enforcement. In your
    judgment, do you agree with me as to the magnitude of the
    threat we face right now of a potential terrorist attack?
        Mr. Patel. It's as high as I've ever seen it, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. And describe to this Committee what the FBI
    should be doing to prevent future terrorist attacks.
        Mr. Patel. Working hand-in-glove with our Intelligence
    Community and obtaining information that directly relates to
    the FBI's criminal mandate on an intelligence basis, and
    thwarting and prosecuting and stopping any terrorist attacks
    here and any homegrown activities abroad that are directed at
    the United States of America, along with countermanding, the
    CCP espionage rings in this country, which dovetail with the
    foreign terrorist organization activity.
        Senator Cruz. Does it concern you that Customs and Border
    Patrol in the previous administration instructed Border Patrol
    agents, in particular, to be on the lookout for Hamas or
    Hezbollah or Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists crossing our
    Southern Border? Does that concern you as a risk to Americans
    across the country?
        Mr. Patel. That, along with the fact that the prior
    Homeland Secretary and the prior FBI Director testified to
    Congress that there are dozens of known foreign terrorist
    affiliates in the United States of America and they don't know
    where they are.
        Senator Cruz. And it will be your priority to stop them. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to ask
    you some easy questions.
        Mr. Patel. Okay.
        Senator Blumenthal. I take it from what you have said to a
    couple of my colleagues that, while we may disagree on the
    meaning of Rule 6(e), as to getting the transcript, you would
    not object to this Committee seeking access to that transcript.
        Mr. Patel. No.
        Senator Blumenthal. And you're aware that Rule 6(e) permits
    you to talk about your own testimony. Will you testify to this
    Committee, let's say, in a classified setting, as to what you
    said to the grand jury?
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I'm here to testify to this Committee
    about everything I'm allowed to, and my understanding----
        Senator Blumenthal. You're allowed under Rule 6(e) to tell
    us what you said to the grand jury. This is kind of the first
    day that an assistant U.S. attorney goes to the first grand
    jury and is asked by a witness, can I talk about what I told
    you? And the answer is yes, you know.
        Mr. Patel. Senator, I will consult with counsel and provide
    the appropriate----
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me----
        Mr. Patel [continuing]. Answer.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Let me just say right to
    the point, Mr. Patel. What are you hiding? Why won't you tell
    us? You testified under a grant of immunity after taking the
    Fifth Amendment, as you're privileged to do, and the appearance
    here is that you have something to hide. I submit to my
    colleagues on the Committee we need to know what the grand jury
    testimony is. We need access to that second volume, and you
    have no objection to our seeking it, but you won't tell us even
    in a classified confidential setting. I think that position is
    disqualifying.
        Mr. Patel. That was days of testimony years ago. I don't
    have the ability to recollect that.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, you can refresh your recollection
    with access----
        Mr. Patel. With the transcript.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. To the transcript. Let me
    ask you another topic. And I really regret that you won't
    cooperate with us on the grand jury testimony. Would you object
    to the firing of the Department of Justice Inspector General
    Michael Horowitz?
        Mr. Patel. Would I object to it? That's the providence for
    the Attorney General to make. It's not something I would
    participate in.
        Senator Blumenthal. But you know of his work. It's been
    bipartisan----
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Very thorough, competent,
    objective, impartial. He has been critical in Republican and
    Democratic----
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Administrations. Won't you
    object to his firing?
        Mr. Patel. I think he's done a great job. But it's not up
    to me to decide who stays and goes at the Department of
    Justice,
        Senator Blumenthal. But I'm not asking you to make the
    decision. I'm asking you whether you will take a stand, speak
    up, stand up in favor of a watchdog who has helped preserve the
    integrity of the Department of Justice and aligned himself
    against waste and fraud and abuse.
        Mr. Patel. If the Attorney General asked me, yes--for my
    opinion.
        Senator Blumenthal. Volunteered? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, I want to
    continue on a brief topic I mentioned earlier and one that we
    discussed in my office when you came to visit in December, and
    that is Redstone Arsenal, and the FBI assets, and the men and
    women that will report to you, when confirmed, that are there
    in Huntsville, Alabama. So I really want you to come and visit
    with me. The state-of-the-art facilities that you have--we have
    there are pretty incredible. I mean, when you look across the
    board, we have the Ballistics Research Facility, the Hazardous
    Device School. We have TAC, which is the Terrorist Explosive
    Device Analytics Center, and last but not least, obviously,
    what is sometimes referred to as Headquarters South--we have
    the sprawling north and south campus of the FBI.
        Look, there has been over $4 billion invested there. It is
    truly remarkable, the training that is going on there.
    There's--they are delivering to missions when it comes to
    emerging technologies, investigating lead generation, security
    and contracts, personnel and human resources, just to name a
    few. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time in my 3 minutes to
    dive into all of the incredible work that's doing there, but
    just want to reiterate that the workforce occupying these
    facilities, they were moved from DC to Huntsville. They are
    working diligently each and every day to make sure that men and
    women in uniform are the best trained, equipped, and ready that
    there is. And I would love a commitment from you just to come
    with me to visit those facilities, see what those men and women
    are doing, what they're learning and all of the training that's
    right there at their fingertips.
        Mr. Patel. Senator, you have that commitment. And this is a
    great example, real quick, of the FBI's capabilities and
    infrastructure systems around the country that already exist to
    the tune of billions.
        Senator Britt. Oh, yes.
        Mr. Patel. And not only is it, I believe, a 38,000-acre
    sprawling campus, this Congress billeted 2,500 seats. But 4,000
    seats still remain open, so let's go to work. I'll come to
    Alabama and let's fill those seats.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely. I love it. I love to hear that.
    And another thing, too. Obviously, as we've looked over the
    last couple of years--I'll put on my Appropriator hat--the
    budget obviously for the FBI has been decreased. Obviously,
    you're going to help us return America's trust in the FBI. But
    as we look at that and we try to make those numbers work, I
    just want, on your radar, I want you to be thoughtful about
    this. You know, it's easy to say let's cut training. That's an
    easy thing to cut first. I think that that's the worst thing
    that we can do. We want to make sure that our men and women are
    ready, that they're ready to find leads that lead to child
    trafficking rings and other things, and you've talked about the
    rapes, the fentanyl overdoses, the murders. We want to make
    sure that we are equipping them with all the tools necessary to
    make those strides for the American people. And so just want
    your commitment from you that as we look at these things, that
    you will take a good look at training and make sure that that's
    not the first thing that gets cut.
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely--high standards and merit.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Patel. That's what we'll do.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Klobuchar--59 seconds.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we talked
    about, Mr. Patel, truth is incredibly important in an FBI
    Director, and a number of the things I asked you about in the
    first round you didn't recall or you wanted more context. I'm
    going to give you one of those. I'll give you the rest on the
    record. That was about when I asked you about the Capitol
    Police Officers who testified in the January 6 hearings, and
    you accused them of lying. You said, and I quote, ``I don't
    think that's accurate.'' I actually have the transcript here,
    which was reported by The Washington Post, and that was in
    March of 2024 on Joe Pags' podcast. He asked you, ``The Capitol
    Police, in that fake January 6th Committee, they didn't tell
    the truth. Did they? Patel: No, not just them, many others, and
    lying under oath is a Federal offense and they should be
    investigated for it.'' Do you believe that about the police
    officers?
        Mr. Patel. That's a general statement and a
    mischaracterization of what I said. I encourage you to read the
    rest of the interview. This is why snippets of information are
    often misleading and detrimental to this Committee's advice and
    consent process.
        Senator Klobuchar. Oh. If you consent, I would love to have
    5 hours of questions, and then I could read the whole
    transcript.
        Mr. Patel. You've got 2 minutes.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay--wow. In September, you referred to
    the FBI's Intel Branch, which was stood up after 9/11 and works
    to protect us from foreign adversaries like China, as, quote,
    ``the biggest problem the FBI has had,'' end quote. And you
    said you wanted to, quote, ``break that component out of the
    FBI.'' It was the same sentence where you said about turning
    the FBI headquarters into a museum. Do you really think that
    closing the Intel Branch will make Americans safer?
        Mr. Patel. Again, it's not what I said. The intelligence
    component of the FBI has seen some politicization and
    weaponization that we've discussed here today, and intelligence
    collection capabilities belong in the Intelligence Community.
    Having served in both law enforcement intelligence communities,
    I'm uniquely qualified to bring the intelligence limited
    component back to the FBI. That ties back to the legislative
    mandate of prosecuting and investigating criminals.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Last--I will end early, Mr.
    Chairman. You said in May of 2023--this is important to all of
    us because Elon Musk is playing such a major role in the
    Government right now--you said, ``Elon Musk cares about two
    things: your data and his money.'' Do you still stand by those
    words?
        Mr. Patel. I don't have that entire quote, but if that's
    what it says.
        Senator Klobuchar. It was in a cert--you were angry because
    of an endorsement of Governor DeSantis in Florida, and so you
    were defending Donald Trump--and so you criticized Elon Musk
    and that was the context for it. And you said, ``Elon Musk
    cares about two things: your data and his money.'' And it
    matters to us because he's playing such a major role in the
    Government. And so I just wonder if you think that's true.
        Mr. Patel. I don't have that full quote in front of me to
    respond.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Moody.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, sir. It sounds to me like my
    fellow Senator is trying to get you to move FBI headquarters to
    Alabama. I have a full list of why it should move to Florida--
    and at the very least, maybe a Flora-Bama FBI HQ.
        Mr. Patel. Flora-Bama.
        Senator Moody. Good people there, good recruits. We would
    fully support it.
        Moving on to a more serious matter, I know you would be
    shocked to learn this. As AG and as the chair of the Human
    Trafficking Council in Florida, we saw trafficking explode
    around the Nation as a result of the Biden administration's
    wide open borders. It's no surprise to anyone. But it might
    shock you to know that the National Human Trafficking Hotline
    that was funded by Congress to report tips to law enforcement
    in the last 4 years decided that they would no longer report
    tips to law enforcement, that they would take a more victim-
    centered approach. And this fell in line with a lot of what we
    saw over the last 4 years with people saying things like defund
    the police, abolish the police--nonsense policies that lead to
    an explosion in crime. You and I both understand that from our
    prior work experience.
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely.
        Senator Moody. So there was a CEO that was put in charge in
    the last 4 years who said that she--we cannot arrest our way
    out of the human trafficking problem, and I quote,
    ``Trafficking in all its forms is the end result of inequities,
    abuses of power, and massive systemic and government
    failures.'' Do you believe that that is in fact the cause of
    human trafficking, or is it the result of evil, heinous humans
    that seek to profit off of others' pain?
        Mr. Patel. The only people responsible for human
    trafficking are the criminals that intentionally traffic in
    humans, in children, and exploit them. And if I'm confirmed, it
    will be one of the top priorities to make sure that doesn't
    happen in this country and that we find the thousands of
    missing children that are still missing.
        Senator Moody. I, along with many of the other attorneys
    general in this Nation, in a bipartisan fashion, not only
    demanded that they begin reporting tips to law enforcement so
    that they could follow up and go after the traffickers so that
    they didn't continue to victimize and victimize others, but we
    also came to Congress and tried to get funding pulled--or at
    least a mandate that they do what they were created to do, and
    that is to report tips to law enforcement. Do I have your word,
    moving forward, as someone who understands the necessity to go
    after traffickers, to not only identify and rescue victims but
    to assure there aren't other victims? Do I have your word
    you'll work with me to come to Congress to make sure that that
    happens so that that can never happen again?
        Mr. Patel. You do, Senator.
        Senator Moody. I'm proud to say, in Florida we were able,
    when we didn't get that result here in Congress, we started our
    own hotline. It's one of the first in the Nation, and no
    surprise, we immediately rescued 10 victims of human
    trafficking that were being held by force and massage parlors.
    Reporting to law enforcement works. It allows us to rescue and
    save lives, and I know you will bring that mission focus back
    to the FBI.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Senator. I will.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
    want to touch on something that's been on my mind lately, and I
    will tie it back to this hearing. We have seen a wholesale
    attack and assault in the past 2 weeks by President Trump on
    the value of diversity. Through his Executive orders, he is
    seeking to dismantle over 60 years of work to promote equal
    opportunity in the Federal Government. His pronouncements have
    gotten so bad that, apparently, the Defense Intelligence Agency
    issued a memo 2 days ago that it would no longer commemorate
    Martin Luther King Day, Women's History month, Holocaust Day of
    Remembrance, or Asian-American/Pacific Islander Heritage Month,
    and so on. Why is there such a fear of people who are
    different? In Hawaii, we celebrate diversity and know that it
    gives us strength. It is part of what makes Hawaii and America
    great.
        Mr. Patel, earlier you shared some deplorable racist
    rhetoric that had been used against you. As someone who has
    also been the recipient of this sort of hateful language, I am
    deeply sympathetic. I also note, Mr. Patel, that in the past,
    you have recognized the value of diversity. Back when you were
    in law school, you signed on to an amicus brief in the Grutter
    case supporting consideration of race in law school admissions.
    I hope that joining the Trump administration will not cause you
    to change your views on the value of diversity.
        Reflecting on this hearing, it is sad that we are
    considering Mr. Patel's nomination despite his gross inadequacy
    to do the job of FBI Director fairly and objectively. Yet,
    there is no question that much pressure has been brought to
    bear on my Republican colleagues to support this nomination.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Hirono. For example, a man named Mike Davis has
    been threatening my Republican colleagues. He said that this
    vote was a red line--that if Senate Republicans don't vote to
    confirm Mr. Patel, his organization, a group called the Article
    III Project, would make their lives a living hell. I certainly
    hope that all of us will base our vote on your nomination on
    the best interest--who can work in the best interest of our
    country and not based on this sort of pressure. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schmitt.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to
    give you a chance to respond to this because I think my
    colleagues are misstating the law here. You can't authorize the
    release of your grand jury testimony. Only a court can do that.
    Is that right?
        Mr. Patel. That's been my understanding.
        Senator Schmitt. Yes. And you--I think you've stated that
    the best reflection and the most accurate version of your
    testimony is the transcript----
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir.
        Senator Schmitt [continuing]. In the grand jury testimony,
    that you're fine to be released, but the court has to go do
    that. Right?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, sir.
        Senator Schmitt. Yes. Okay. And it lasted like 3 or 4 days.
    Is that what you were saying?
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Schmitt. Okay. I also want to--Senator Durbin's
    talked about, you know, what your priority, or your priorities
    will be, and I think your testimony has been that it'll be
    adherence to the Constitution and the people of the United
    States of America. Right? You take that very seriously.
        Mr. Patel. That's it. That's the only thing that matters.
        Senator Schmitt. Could you talk about maybe some other
    priorities? We talked initially in my first round about getting
    the FBI back to its core mission----
        Mr. Patel. Yes.
        Senator Schmitt [continuing]. Which is to fight crime and
    not, you know, sort of try to do the things that it's been
    doing the last 4 years. Talk about how you might bring that
    together.
        Mr. Patel. So, Senator, I appreciate the questions. It's
    something I wanted to address, maybe, 6 hours ago, so I
    appreciate the opportunity to do it now. Whether we prioritize
    going after violent crime and national security, we cannot
    defend against either of those successfully unless we go after
    the underlying criminal nexus there. And whether it's human
    trafficking, whether it's terrorism, whether it's opioids, and
    whether it's just outright gang violence, the intersection
    there is narco trafficking. It is the underlying underbelly,
    the evil illegal underbelly of all those operations that we
    have not prioritized, in my opinion, as a law enforcement
    agency, the collective power we can rain down on criminal narco
    trafficking networks. And ideally, if I'm confirmed, Senator, I
    would like to work with Attorney General Pam Bondi, if she can
    become confirmed, to set up regional drug interdiction task
    force where our local sheriffs' offices, our local PDs, and our
    local precincts are folded in with the FBI on an information-
    and authority-sharing basis to take down the criminal networks.
        And the advice and consent process has been extremely
    informative of this, to me. I do not know your jurisdictions,
    as well as you all ever will. That's what makes this so
    critically important, educational. I did not know that Memphis
    was the homicide capital of America per capita. I did not know
    that there was a corridor in Ohio that speaks to the human
    trafficking volume more so than any intersection in the
    country. That is what I will rely on your expertise across the
    aisle to fold in those resources and target those criminal
    active hotbeds. And I believe if we are successful in actually
    crippling the narco trafficking networks, we will see a
    decrease, monumental, in violent crime and at the same time
    protecting American's national security.
        Senator Schmitt. And maybe, just maybe, where you have a
    third of the personnel for the FBI here in Washington, DC,
    maybe just maybe one of the reforms is to get more of those
    folks out into those areas across the country to go do that.
    Right? That's what you're talking about?
        Mr. Patel. I think so, sir.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Mr. Patel, do you know any of these five
    individuals: Erica Knight, Tom Ferguson, Greg Mentzer, Steve
    Reese, or Carlos Fernandez?
        Mr. Patel. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Booker. Who are they?
        Mr. Patel. People I've worked with in the past, at some
    point.
        Senator Booker. I'm told that those are the people that
    will be additional political appointees to help run the FBI. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Patel. That's news to me, Senator.
        Senator Booker. Under the history of our--the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation, since the reforms in the early 1970s,
    there's only been one political appointee. I'm told that these
    will be additional political appointees--five extra political
    appointees. Do you know if Reese or Fernandez are affiliated
    with SpaceX or Elon Musk?
        Mr. Patel. I don't.
        Senator Booker. I'm told that they are affiliated with
    SpaceX and Elon Musk, and that he had influence in who will be
    placed around you as political appointees. Mr. Patel, did you
    see the President of the United States declassify the documents
    that were found at Mar-a-Lago?
        Mr. Patel. I witnessed the President of the United States
    issue a declassification order for documents.
        Senator Booker. That did not answer my question. Did you or
    did you not see the President of the United States declassify
    the documents that he was holding--the classified documents
    that were at Mar-a-Lago? And did you----
        Mr. Patel. I don't know the answer to that question because
    I don't know what was fully found because the Justice
    Department hasn't made that public.
        Senator Booker. You claimed publicly that you saw President
    Trump declassify documents. Is that correct?
        Mr. Patel. That's correct, Senator.
        Senator Booker. So you did indeed see President Trump
    declassify the documents that were found at Mar-a-Lago that he
    refused to turn over. Is that correct?
        Mr. Patel. No. What I said, Senator, was I heard and
    witnessed the President issue a declassification order for a
    number of documents.
        Senator Booker. For the documents specifically that were at
    Mar-a-Lago?
        Mr. Patel. When he issued that order, there was documents.
    I don't know what was found and what was not found at Mar-a-
    Lago. I wasn't there.
        Senator Booker. So this is the issue. The question is, is
    will you lie for the President of the United States? Would you
    lie for Donald Trump?
        Mr. Patel. No.
        Senator Booker. I hear you saying no, but the best way to
    clarify that would be to testify, as you were allowed by law,
    upon what you'd said to the grand jury. Because that grand
    jury, as you just said to my colleague, two or three days of it
    was about this specific issue.
        And so, as my time ends, Mr. Chairman, it would be utterly
    irresponsible for this Committee to move forward with his
    nomination unless we know factually, which can be proven by
    looking at the documents that he's refusing to testify toward,
    it would be irresponsible for us to move forward if we do not
    know that the future head of the FBI would break the law and
    lie for the President of the United States. We can find that
    out factually if we had access to the testimony or if he would
    tell us what he said to the grand jury, which by the law of the
    United States of America, he's allowed to.
        But he's refusing to do so. He is refusing the transparency
    that he claims to adhere to. He is refusing to be direct with
    the United States Senate. He is refusing to be transparent and
    put it all out there. Did he or did he not lie for the
    President? That is the question.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    that, and thank you for your patience today. We do appreciate
    it. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I put up the clip that
    showed me requesting the records for Epstein, that is--I put
    that up on social media just so we could clarify that issue.
    Mr. Patel, what I'd like to ask you about, you mentioned that
    Memphis is the homicide capital of the country. That concerns
    us, and we've recently had an issue where the FBI wanted to
    consolidate the Memphis and Knoxville offices into a Nashville
    office. And, of course, this causes us some concern. And I
    would like to get your commitment that you will make certain
    that we have every resource we need in Memphis to deal with
    this issue and that the FBI will be appropriately resourced in
    the State of Tennessee.
        Mr. Patel. You absolutely will, Senator.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you so much for that. And then
    we've had some talk today about DEI, and we've talked about
    this in this Committee and the emphasis the FBI put on DEI, and
    things like counting Swiftie bracelets, and things of that
    nature, and not on investigations. And what we want to make
    certain is that we have qualified individuals who are going to
    stick to that core mission, and you have talked about that
    mission today and thank you for being able to recite what it
    is. We appreciate that, and I want you to just talk a little
    bit about those first few actions that you can take to build--
    to build back the recruiting and the training in order to
    accomplish that mission.
        Mr. Patel. Absolutely, Senator. Quite simply, I know we
    have limited time, is that people who sign up to serve the FBI
    must meet the rigorous high standards, merits, and physical
    fitness standards, and those will not go--those will not be
    changed.
        Senator Blackburn. So that will be a priority for you?
        Mr. Patel. And I think people who want to join the FBI do
    so with the dedication to serve this country and an adherence
    to law enforcement, and we will allow those folks that graduate
    from the academy and enter the FBI to carry a gun and a badge
    in representation of this country to protect its citizens. And
    when we allow the good cops to be cops and put handcuffs on the
    bad guys, I think you will see an exponential increase in
    enrollment and how we keep people at the FBI.
        Senator Blackburn. And that is a day one item for you.
        Mr. Patel. Yes ma'am.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Patel, do you
    believe that background checks for firearm purchases are
    constitutional?
        Mr. Patel. I don't know the in-depth of it, but I think
    that's what the Supreme Court has said, Senator.
        Senator Padilla. So the word would be Y-E-S, yes? Can you
    say yes? Are background checks constitutional?
        Mr. Patel. I can say whatever the Constitution and the
    Supreme Court ruled is the rule of the land.
        Senator Padilla. And what is the rule--the law of the land
    at the moment?
        Mr. Patel. I'm not an expert on State-by-State background
    checks.
        Senator Padilla. You're going to be--universal background
    checks----
        Mr. Patel. Well, that's different.
        Senator Padilla. I think actually your answer is pretty
    telling. Let me ask you another question. Do you believe that
    civilian ownership of machine guns are protected by the Second
    Amendment?
        Mr. Patel. Universal background checks are different--
    that's not what you say----
        Senator Padilla. I asked a separate question. Do you
    believe civilian ownership of machine guns is protected by the
    Second Amendment?
        Mr. Patel. Whatever the court's rule in regards to the
    Second Amendment is what is protected by the Second Amendment.
        Senator Padilla. He's got another telling response,
    colleagues, on another important issue. We've all talked--both
    sides of the aisle--about our concern about gun violence in
    America. I raise these questions because of an association that
    can be observed between Mr. Patel and Gun Owners of America--a
    group staunchly opposed to firearm regulation, a group that Mr.
    Patel addressed in August, and a group that in December issued
    a press release applauding his nomination to be FBI Director.
    Gun Owners of America has taken extreme positions, including
    the position that all background checks are unconstitutional
    and that civilian ownership of machine guns is protected under
    the Second Amendment. Mr. Patel, let me remind you that as FBI
    Director, you would oversee critical responsibilities related
    to firearm regulation, including administering the National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System. Yes, it's
    constitutional. It's in place for a reason. You would also
    regulate the distribution of machine guns to prevent them from
    falling into the wrong hands. Policies and programs in place
    for a reason. And given your hesitancy, given your answers, I'm
    concerned about your ability to do the job when it's not in
    alignment with groups like Gun Owners of America.
        Colleagues, we've been hearing a lot of partial responses
    and lack of recollections throughout the day, and I can't help
    but identify the pattern of Mr. Patel calling FBI leadership
    corrupt, labeling agents as gangsters, accusing them of being
    part of a criminal deep state conspiracy. We've heard of his
    experience with the J6 Prison choir, a group of individuals
    convicted for their roles in the January 6 insurrection. We've
    heard his false claims that the U.S. had secured airspace
    permissions during a high-stakes SEAL team hostage rescue
    mission in Nigeria. I can go on and on. These positions are
    inconsistent with the role of FBI Director, a position that
    demands independence, professionalism, and unwavering
    commitment to the rule of law. Mr. Patel, your loyalty to
    President Trump and the MAGA movement may score you points in
    some quarters, but they are certainly not the qualities
    necessary to serve as Director of the FBI.
        And, Mr. Chair, just in closing, I understand while I was
    out of the room earlier that Senator Tillis raised my name and
    attributed it to, quote, ``bend the knee'' as part of my
    questioning earlier--to me. And so for the record and for my
    colleague from North Carolina, I want to clarify that the
    ``bend the knee'' quotes were not my words. I was quoting Mr.
    Patel as he appeared on the ``Shawn Ryan Show'' on September 2
    of 2024, and I'm happy to share a link, Senator Tillis, to
    clarify. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much. I don't want to belabor
    this, but it would--it certainly would be of benefit to us if
    that grand jury testimony could be released. But my
    understanding is that Senator Whitehouse's point, that you
    don't need--you, as a witness, could reveal what you said. And
    I'm just suggesting you might give that some further thought.
    The second thing is that you have an incred--everybody who runs
    an agency has enormous responsibility for the people who work
    there. I happen to have an incredibly high opinion of the FBI.
    The first time I came to Washington as a boy, I remember the
    thrill I had going to the FBI headquarters. I thought it was a
    big deal that my Senator, then, got me special tickets to go,
    and I've always admired them. There's a lot of apprehension
    there, and it's not just on this question of weaponization.
    There's a lot of disruption in a new administration. And, as
    you've seen, the President announced an impoundment in effect.
    It's been rescinded by the courts. But we've received calls
    from folks in various agencies who we've worked with or seen
    over the years, and there's just an immense amount of
    insecurity--do I have my job? Don't I have my job?
        And, frankly, I think--I will just--this is my point to the
    President. Chaos is one thing, but cruelty is another. And
    having people be really uncertain about do they have a job
    today or not and leaving them in limbo, I don't think is a good
    thing for morale. And I don't care whether it's a Democratic or
    Republican President. I'm just looking to you to assure me that
    the tradition that we've had anchored in the FBI since 1972
    when it was politicized--I mean, J. Edgar Hoover went after
    Martin Luther King in a disgusting and despicable way, went
    after some John Birch Society folks for their political beliefs
    in a disgusting and horrible way. And we have no political
    appointees over there. So it's going to be up to you to, I
    think, strengthen that tradition. And we heard about the
    political appointees that are over there now--or, I guess
    they're not officially appointees, but they've been sent by the
    administration. You didn't know about it, but one of them is
    from SpaceX. And, you know, Elon Musk--he's a rich--a rich guy,
    but he has no authority, other than what's delegated by the
    President. But he has no official authority. And why is--you
    can't answer this, but do you want somebody like Elon Musk
    peering over your shoulder, telling you what to do about
    personnel?
        Mr. Patel. No, the FBI must be independent.
        Senator Welch. Well, kick him out. I mean, I'm with you on
    that. He has no basis, he has no reason to be there. There's
    some former FBI people. You'll pick the people that you want to
    listen to. You'll have to make the decisions. You'll be
    accountable to this Committee. But ``no'' on Elon Musk. He's
    just a political crony who knows nothing about law enforcement.
    So thank you for that assurance.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, when
    Mr. Booker was asking you questions in his first round, you
    said, ``Senator, the grand jury testimony is available to you.
    I encourage you to make it public.'' You also later said--or
    previously, to Mr. Booker said, ``Get my grand jury testimony.
    I asked the Department of Justice to make it public.''--``I
    asked the Department of Justice to make it public.'' Do you
    stand by that testimony?
        Mr. Patel. If that's what I said.
        Senator Schiff. So you asked the Justice Department to make
    your grand jury testimony public?
        Mr. Patel. At the time of my appearance in the grand jury.
        Senator Schiff. And who did you ask to do that?
        Mr. Patel. The lawyers.
        Senator Schiff. Mr. Chairman, since the witness has said
    that he encourages this testimony to be public, that he, in
    fact, asked the Justice Department to make it public, I would
    ask you, Mr. Chairman, if you and the Ranking Member would be
    willing to write to the court, acknowledging the witness has
    asked for this to be public, supporting it being made public. I
    can't imagine there's a court in the land that would say no to
    a bipartisan request like that.
        Chairman Grassley. I won't tell you. Let me say something.
    I'm not going to take this out of your time. It's not directly
    answering your question, but I think it'd be significant what
    Richard Grenell put on X: ``I testified in front of Jack
    Smith's grand jury at the Justice Department and Jack Smith's
    prosecutor told me directly that I could not talk about my
    testimony or risk legal actions.'' Then he goes on to say that
    certain Senators, I won't mention here, should ask those
    lawyers why they instructed witnesses this way.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd welcome a
    chance to have Mr. Grenell testify under oath, as opposed to on
    X. But nevertheless, what I would ask, given that this witness
    has said he made the request, this witness has said he would
    like us to read the testimony. I would ask if you, and Senator
    Durbin, would be willing to make that request of the court.
        Chairman Grassley. I wouldn't answer your question without
    talking--to get all the background I need. Considering the
    conversation between you two, I couldn't make that judgment
    now.
        Senator Schiff. I appreciate your consideration, Mr.
    Chairman. And the reason why I think it's so important is,
    let's remind ourselves what those documents were in Mar-a-Lago.
    According to the indictment, the classified documents Trump
    stored in his boxes include information regarding defense and
    weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign
    countries, United States nuclear programs, potential
    vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military
    attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a
    foreign attack. So testimony that goes to the care or lack of
    care, the truthfulness or lack of truthfulness of Mr. Patel
    would be directly relevant to whether he should be confirmed as
    FBI Director. And those records are there for the asking. No
    court's going to turn us down. Mr. Patel may be, I don't know,
    but he may be the first nominee for FBI Director in history who
    felt it necessary to plead the Fifth--to say that he wouldn't
    testify to a grand jury because it might incriminate him. Maybe
    the first nominee for FBI Director ever to feel necessity of
    pleading the Fifth. Shouldn't we ask for that testimony when
    the witness himself says he would encourage it?
        Finally, I would just say, we need to think about where we
    are in this moment. We have a new President. He's fired
    prosecutors who investigated him. He's investigating other
    prosecutors--or his Department of Justice is. He's fired
    Inspectors General who might hold him accountable. And this is
    just the start. And as FBI Director nominee, he's chosen
    someone whose primary qualification, in my view, is his
    willingness to say ``yes'' when everyone else would say ``no''
    to whatever the President wanted--to say whatever he wanted, to
    do whatever he wanted. That's why he is sitting here.
        I mean, look at the people who held that job before Mr.
    Patel--the stature of the people that held that job, the
    qualifications of the people that held that job. And how can
    any of us think that his background, his qualifications, hold a
    candle to the people who went before him? How did we get here
    where we are defending a nominee like this----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Who makes songs with convicts
    who attack law enforcement? How did we get here? And where are
    we going? History is littered with democracies that lost their
    freedoms and didn't notice it while it was happening.
        Chairman Grassley. Your time up.
        Senator Schiff. Let's not be one of them.
        Chairman Grassley. Your time's up. Before Senator Tillis
    ends this, I want to put in the record letter from the parents
    of Kayla Mueller. Mr. Patel met them through his role in the
    successful operation to track and kill ISIS leader, Abu Bakr
    al-Baghdadi. ``The terrorist''--I'm quoting, ``The terrorist
    group, ISIS, kidnapped our daughter, Kayla, in August of 2013.
    Any family who has lived through such an experience will know
    the value of dedicated, compassionate law enforcement
    officials.
        ``Because . . . we have personal experience of his
    dedication, we know that Kash Patel is such a person. We
    continue to see in him a genuinely kind, thoughtful, action-
    oriented man who focuses on what is true and right and just. He
    loves our country and our citizens and wants the best for them
    all. He wants the country to do the best that it can.''
        Without objection, I'll put their letter in the record.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, I think
    everything that I did to invest in knowing you better has been
    on display today. Congratulations. You've exhibited composure,
    knowledge of the subject matter that I think more than
    qualifies you for Director of the FBI. You know, we seem to
    have the benefit of sort of a different view of looking at the
    history. I heard--I actually was supportive of Comey until I
    figured out that he was playing games. Maybe this is one of the
    people of great stature, but it's well known now that he did
    some things that seemed to have a political tint to them. I
    voted for Christopher Wray. I think he's a good man, but I also
    think he oversaw a Department that did bad things. And at the
    end of the day, that person has to own it. And you will, too.
        You know, it is probably going to disappoint the audience
    to hear what I'm about to say, and those who are watching at
    home, but you may be surprised to know that most of us at this
    dais on both sides of the aisle like each other. Senator Schiff
    and I just met within the last week to talk about areas that we
    can work together on. Senator Padilla and I actually worked
    together. We co-chair the bipartisan Mental Health Caucus, and
    I believe it's actually one of the most important pieces of
    legislation we've done. I didn't get a whole lot of Republicans
    to vote for it, but a fair number--and this is working
    extraordinarily well. Would you commit to me to go into the
    NICS center in West Virginia and just see how extraordinary
    this has come to be? And how it hasn't resulted in a mass
    confiscation of guns, it hasn't resulted in a propagation of
    red flag laws. In fact, the plain text of the legislation is
    not allowing money to flow to States, unfortunately including
    Florida, that we believe have not gotten the due process right
    quite yet so that we would actually fund red flag laws that
    make sense. This is what bipartisanship produces.
        Now, you're not going to see any bipartisanship in your
    confirmation. Look, we had Pam Bondi here, and we had people on
    this Committee talking about a friendship--or a friendly
    relationship in the past. The fact is, it was a shirts-and-
    skins game. Blue voted no, red voted yes. It's got to be the
    same thing for your confirmation. But Mr. Patel, I tell you, I
    have--it has been a distinct honor to do the work with you to
    get you ready for this hearing. You did all the work. I just,
    you know, I'm kind of like the person on the sideline giving
    you some suggestions. But you did an extraordinary job and
    you're going to be held to a high standard. I hope you listen
    to, and if you don't remember it, listen again to what Senator
    Kennedy said. There are folks like us that are tired of the
    pendulum swinging back and forth. We want to be the Senate that
    can confirms an FBI Director that rights the ship, shows
    consistent respect for the rule of law and the Constitution,
    consistent respect for all law enforcement officers. And I
    absolutely believe you're up to the task, and I look forward to
    supporting your nomination.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Before I close the meeting, you have
    anything you want to say?
        Senator Durbin. No.
        Chairman Grassley. I've got something here that's directly
    related. In my opening statement, I said I want the Members of
    this Committee to think about something that's brand new, and
    it kind of deals with this whole exchange we had today in
    regard to the grand jury testimony. So I want to read: ``Based
    upon whistleblower disclosures that I made today, it's clear
    how unfair and corrupt the Trump prosecution was and that's
    created a little faith at best in the grand jury process. We
    shouldn't allow part of that corrupt process to be used by this
    Committee against the nominee. An example, one document I made
    public today, DOJ officials literally concurred with Thibault
    to open the elector case against Trump, and that included a
    grand jury investigation. Jack Smith's lawfare efforts and its
    corrupt process should be what this Committee investigates.''
        Mr. Patel, thank you for your testimony today. Your family
    and friends who are here, I think you got to be very proud of
    him under these tough conditions because he got tough
    questions. I think you did very well, and your reputation
    leading up to and during this hearing, I think, proves that
    you're a person that can stand a lot of heat, including a
    President's telling you how to do your job. If confirmed,
    you'll be in charge of one of the world's best law enforcement
    agencies at the time when it desperately needs strong changes.
        For everyone's information, written questions can be
    submitted for the record until 5 p.m. tomorrow. Mr. Patel, when
    you receive them, it's very important you get back to us just
    as fast as you can so we can set up the meetings that we have
    to go through to get you to the floor of the Senate. So return
    them to the Committee as soon as possible. Mr. Patel, you are
    excused, and the hearing is adjourned.
        Mr. Patel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                A P P E N D I X

    The following submissions are available at:

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg61322/pdf/CHRG-
        119shrg
        61322-add1.pdf

    Submitted by Chairman Grassley:

     Alayoubi, Muhammed H., M.D., et al., Arab American and Muslim
        community leaders, January 15, 2025, letter...................     1

     Alme, Hon. Kurt, et al., former State attorneys general, former
        U.S. attorneys, former U.S. Department of Justice officials,
        January 28, 2025, letter......................................     1

     Asian American Hotel Owners Association, letter..................     1

     Bird, Hon. Brenna, et al., State attorneys general, letter.......     1

     California Narcotic Officers' Association, January 28, 2025,
        letter........................................................     1

     Colton, Emma, foxnews.com, article...............................     1

     Conservative Political Action Coalition, letter..................    11

     Gooden, Hon. Lance, inforney.com, op-ed..........................    11

     Grassley, Hon. Charles E., letter to FBI Director Christopher
        Wray, December 9, 2024........................................    11

     Gray, Alexander B., realclearpolitics.com, article...............    11

     Illinois Drug Enforcement Officers Association, January 27, 2025,
        letter........................................................    11

     Independent Women, January 20, 2025, letter......................    11

     Israeli-American Civic Action Network, statement.................    11

     Miller, Christopher C., theblaze.com, op-ed......................    11

     Mueller, C and M, letter.........................................    11

     Nassau County Police Benevolent Association, January 28, 2025,
        letter........................................................     1

     National Association of Police Organizations, January 29, 2025,
        letter........................................................    11

     National Association of State Drug Enforcement Agencies, letter..    11

     National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition, January 29,
        2025, letter..................................................    11

     National Police Association, December 6, 2024, press release.....    11

     National Sheriffs' Association, January 6, 2025, letter..........    11

     O'Brien, Robert C., The Wall Street Journal, op-ed...............    11

     Public Safety Alliance of Nevada, December 10, 2024, memo........    11

     Republican Jewish Coalition, January 27, 2025, letter............    11

     Smiley, Tiffany, washingtonreporter.news, op-ed..................    11

     Solomon, John, and Steven Richards, justthenews.com, article.....    11

     Spivack, Michael, Daily Caller, op-ed............................    11

     Stewart, Hon. Chris, deseret.com, op-ed..........................    11

     Stout, Richard, et al., former agents and analysts, January 27,
        2025, letter..................................................    11

     Suffolk County Law Enforcement Coalition, January 28, 2025,
        letter........................................................    11

     Tata, Anthony J., Brigadier General, U.S. Army, retired, letter..    11

     United Coalition of Public Safety, January 27, 2025, letter......    11

     United Federation of Police Officers, December 11, 2024, letter..    11

    Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:

     Alliance for Justice, January 29, 2025, letter...................    11

     American Civil Liberties Union, January 9, 2025, letter..........    11
    Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin (continued):

     Bhargava, Dita, et al., opioid addiction victim advocates, letter    11

     Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, January 29,
        2025, letter..................................................    11

     Dowd, John M., January 7, 2025, letter...........................    11

     GIFFORDS, January 30, 2025, press release........................    11

     Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, January 27, 2025,
        letter........................................................    11

     Jankowicz, Nina, January 30, 2025, letter........................    11

     Lacovara, Philip Allen, et al., Republican former law enforcement
        officials, January 28, 2025, letter...........................    11

     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, memo.......    11

     Legal Defense Fund, January 30, 2025, letter.....................    11

     People For the American Way, et al., civil and human rights
        organizations, January 29, 2025, letter.......................   111

     People For the American Way, January 29, 2025, letter............   111

     State Democracy Defenders Action, February 3, 2025, letter.......   111

     Webster, Hon. William, letter....................................   111

     Webster, Hon. William, second letter.............................   111

    Submitted by Senator Graham:

     McGahn, Donald F., II, letter and memo to Hon. Devin Nunes,
        February 2, 2018..............................................   111

    Submitted by Senator Cornyn:

     ``Improvements Made to Section 702,'' poster displayed during
        hearing.......................................................   111

    Submitted by Senator Moody:

     Bird, Hon. Brenna, Attorney General of Iowa, et al., State
        attorneys general, letter.....................................   111

     State of Florida v. Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
        lawsuit.......................................................   111

    Submitted by Senator Klobuchar:

     A collection of online posts and submissions.....................   111

    Submitted by Senator Blumenthal:

     A collection of online posts.....................................   111

    Submitted by Senator Padilla:

     Goldman, Adam, The New York Times, article.......................   111

                                        [all]