Kash Patel makes a mockery of Congress
This is not a man who's worried about being held accountable.
This special Saturday edition of PN is made possible by paid subscribers. Become one ⬇️
FBI Director Kash Patel likely lied to Congress at least twice on Tuesday when he testified to Sens. John Kennedy and Richard Blumenthal he has not asked any FBI agent about their personal politics.
“Have you fired people because they voted for Vice President Harris?” Kennedy asked during Patel’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“I don’t ask people who they vote for and neither does the FBI,” Patel responded.
But Patel allegedly did just that according to a lawsuit filed by three agents with a combined 60 years experience in the agency, each of them with ties to Trump investigations and suspicions that they supported Democrats. All have been fired.
According to the lawsuit, Patel directly mentioned voting for Kamala Harris in a January conversation with Brian Driscoll, the former FBI acting director who is one the agents suing the agency. This not-so-subtle inquiry into whether Driscoll had voted for Harris came up even before Trump was inaugurated.
On the week of January 13, Patel called Driscoll and said he would be vetted to assume temporary command of the FBI while Patel awaited Senate confirmation. But this promotion for Driscoll, a 20-year agency veteran, came with a caveat, according to the lawsuit.
When Driscoll asked Patel what the vetting process would entail, Patel “responded that as long as Driscoll was not prolific on social media, did not donate to the Democratic Party, and did not vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, the ‘vetting’ would not be an issue,” according to the lawsuit.
“Driscoll did not respond to those comments,” the lawsuit states. “In total, the conversation between Patel and Driscoll lasted less than five minutes. Prior to this call, Driscoll had never met or spoken with Patel.”
Patel’s response to Kennedy that he has never probed the political leanings of FBI agents was the first of at least two dubious statements on the subject in Tuesday’s hearing.
When Blumenthal asked whether Patel or his surrogates have asked about FBI agents’ personal politics when conducting lie detector tests, Patel again contradicted the allegations in Driscoll’s lawsuit.
“Have you asked, under the polygraph tests, about individuals’ loyalty, or their voting records, or any kind of past statements?” Blumenthal asked.
“Just to make clear, I don’t tell the professionals how to conduct polygraphs or what questions to ask — they make those decisions,” Patel responded. “And I as the director of the FBI never ask anyone who they voted for.”
Patel’s comment about not asking FBI agents who they voted for was not just noteworthy because it is almost surely not true, but because it shows how little he cares about things like perjuring himself to Congress and his oath to the constitution. It’s also noteworthy because Patel repeatedly refused to answer questions about Driscoll’s allegations, citing the ongoing nature of the lawsuit.
“The only way people get terminated at the FBI is if they fail to meet the muster of the job and their duties,” Patel said. “And that is where I will leave it. Those are allegations. And that is an ongoing litigation. So they will have their day in court, and so will we.”
Patel’s apparent lies about the ongoing political purge within the FBI — while seemingly blatant — were just some of the inconsistencies pointed out by Democrats.
Patel was grilled about his past statements committing to de-politicize the FBI, which Republicans claim was weaponized against Trump thanks to the agency’s investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified information, and his involvement in the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
Democrats pointed out that, as FBI director, Patel appears to have done the exact opposite — purging the agency of anyone not abundantly loyal to the president. This allegation is also included in Driscoll’s lawsuit.
“Patel explained that he had to fire the people his superiors told him to fire, because his ability to keep his own job depended on the removal of agents who worked on cases involving the President,” the lawsuit states. “Patel explained that there was nothing he or Driscoll could do to stop these or any other firings, because ‘the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.’”
Democrats also nailed Patel on previous comments, made during his confirmation hearings, that he wouldn’t seek retribution on behalf of Trump. At the time, Patel claimed that “there will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no retributive actions taken.”
Not only does Driscoll’s lawsuit contradict these statements, Democrats said, but investigations of government officials who were included on an enemies list published in Patel’s book, “Government Gangsters,” have ramped up. Patel went as far as to claim that he does “not have an enemies list.”
“Well, there was a list,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). “You don’t like it to be called an enemies list, but it had about 60 names, and about 20 have had adverse actions. So I think those are pretty clear facts.”
Former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former DHS official Miles Taylor — all of whom were named as part of a “cabal of unelected tyrants” in Patel’s book — are now the subject of FBI or Justice Department investigations. So is former national security advisor John Bolton, who Patel named as a member of the so-called “cabal.” Last month, Bolton’s home was raided by the FBI.
Democrats and Kennedy also grilled Patel on the case of Jeffery Epstein. After repeatedly claiming that Epstein was the leader of a sex trafficking operation that involved a vast network of mostly liberal or Democratic high-rollers, Patel now says there’s no evidence of the wild claims he and other leaders in the MAGA movement pushed for years.
“There is no credible information — none; if there were, I would bring the case yesterday — that he trafficked to other individuals,” Patel told Kennedy.
Patel’s apparent lack of concern about lying to Congress is just the latest example of the Trump administration’s complete disregard for checks and balances and the rule of law. With an exodus of experienced agents like Driscoll who have either been fired or have resigned in the first nine months of the Trump administration, the FBI is now in prime position to carry out its next major initiative — targeting left-wing organizations to avenge the death of right-wing influencer and political operative Charlie Kirk.
Patel has a lot to prove in the wake of Kirk’s killing — even some MAGA diehards questioned his handling of the case, especially his initial fumble in claiming the killer was in custody only to retract that statement hours later. He clearly hopes to save some face by having the FBI investigate left-wing groups that the Trump administration and congressional Republicans want people to believe are somehow responsible for Kirk’s murder.
During his testimony, Patel said he would “follow the money” to hold left-wing organizations accountable for their ill-defined role in a political assassination carried out by one man.
“So we work with our partners at the Treasury Department to trace where the money came from, how these individuals paid for the training they received or the platforms they were using, and also how these individuals collectively got together in whatever groups they were on, on whatever social media platforms they were on, to utilize click bait to make money for their ideology,” he said.
With his back against the wall, Patel is setting up the FBI to act as the vanguard of a federal government that is completely weaponized against any and all Americans who stand in opposition to the Trump regime.
That’s it for this week
We’ll be back with more Monday. If you appreciate this newsletter, please do your part to keep Public Notice free by signing up for a paid subscription.
Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend.
Congress doesn't need any help making a mockery of itself.
Yesterday the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk, describing him “as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum” who was known for “engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic.”'
Of course, in any sane world, everyone would recognize that none of that is remotely true. The rush to lionize and sanctify this racist, misogynist provocateur whose entire career was based on divisiveness after his horrific murder is revolting.
Hakeem Jeffries and most Democratic leadership cowardly voted for this resolution, only fifty-eight Democrats opposed the resolution, while another 38 voted present and 22 didn’t vote at all.
Democrats once again show how spineless they are against the surge of historical revisionism and authoritarianism being brought by Trump and the GOP. At the same moment when journalists, TV personalities, teachers and so many others are being fired left and right for saying even the tiniest (and factual) criticisms of Kirk, the Democratic Party helps to throw them all under the bus.
In Trump v US John Roberts and the Fash Five gave Trump the power to control prosecutions by DoJ. That weasel Patel knows he's safe from prosecution for lying to Congress as long as his lies protect Trump.