[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]