[00:00:00] Speaker 1: 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 that, if you remember, I first met you, Mr. Patel. Through tireless works, Mr. Patel showed that Crossfire Hurricane was based upon fraudulent, discredited information paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. As 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 treating 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 having, quote-unquote, an enemies list. This is not a fair characterization. As he stated, quote, there is 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, or 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 Reischagate scandal in the Congress, Mr. Patel served in roles such as senior director 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, an FBI oversight hearing of this committee, Director Wray decided to leave early. I asked him to stay just one 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 22, 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, 23 hearing before this committee. He publicly pledged to get me the data I requested 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 security concerns. So what's the number now? The public has a right to know. I've also raised concerns about whistleblower disclosure, 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 John J. 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 election 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's that's never been made public before. Do you have those? Oh yeah, I'm sorry. In my hand are a series of FBI emails. The first is an email that Thibault sent to subordinate agent on February the 14th, 2022. He said, quote, here's a 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 24th, 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. Tump as a predicated subject, end quote. This FBI case would later be codenamed Arctic Frost. The third email, February 24th, 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 25th, 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 an April 11th, 2022, from Thibault, approving the opening of Arctic Frost. The seventh email is an April 13th, 2022, email from FBI agent 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 22nd and April 13th, other versions of the document opening the investigation existed, because a ninth email shows that the FBI general counsel office made edits on March 25th. 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 one-story institution. As I've said before, if a politically charged investigation is to be open, 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 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 19 or 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 that 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 is sent to Director Wray December the 9th, last year, calling for him and his deputies to step down, and it's titled, quote-unquote, failures. Now I turn to Ranking Member Durbin.

[00:17:22] Speaker 2: 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. End 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 is neither the experience, the temperament, nor the judgment to lead an agency of 38,000 agencies and 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 threaten and theories and 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 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? 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 6th, and he dedicates a whole chapter in this book on January 6th. That's something that each and every one of us as witnesses to January 6th 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 on social media, quote, January 6th, 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 6th in a uniform? The Capitol police were. You think they were cowards? Many of them risked their lives and some gave their lives in defense of this building. How about the D.C. 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 aspires to lead, get this now, was planning January 6th for a year. He says the FBI was planning January 6th 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 6th rioters in jail. Rioters who violently assaulted police officers. He has described this January 6th choir as, quote, political prisoners. Political prisoners. But at least six members pleaded guilty to assaulting law enforcement officers on January 6th. All six have now been pardoned by President Trump. Here are some of those people who received blanket clemency by President Trump on his first day in office in the second term. Julian Cater assaulted Capitol police officers with pepper spray, incapacitating three officers. 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. Jordan Mink struck officers, quote, aggressively with a long pole. He spat at officers and threw large items at them. Armed with a knife, Ronald Sandlin shouted at officers, quote, you're going to die. Get out of the way. Sandlin shoved officers when they tried to lock the doors to the Senate gallery. After breaching the Capitol, James McGrew struck an officer and lunged for his baton. McGrew also threw a wooden handrail with metal brackets at officers. I want to read a sentence from this book on the January 6th 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 non-lethal objects like bottles, flagpoles, or bike racks. Mr. Patel has also peddled conspiracy theories for his own financial benefit, 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 work 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 believe that the FBI was a critical central agency in restoring America's confidence that we were safe. Bob Mueller was an extraordinary man. He was a Republican. Make no bones about it. He said it, admitted it, and I knew it. He comes from the San Francisco area. 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. He was the 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 fellow. 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 this 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 the checklist of grievances we find in this book. Mr. Patel, your record makes it clear you're not that person. I yield.

[00:30:58] Speaker 1: Thank you, Senator Durbin. Before I call on Senator Tellis, I want to clear up something, the way I see it, and I think I'm going to invite everybody that 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 D.C. National Guard. So I would encourage people to follow up on that. Senator Tellis.

[00:32:09] Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's my honor to introduce Cash Patel, President Trump's nominee to be FBI Director. I've completed due diligence on his life and career, and I'm convinced that Cash possesses significant expertise and ironclad commitment to justice, and he's an outstanding choice to lead the FBI. Cash'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 Cash in the Hindu faith, and they instilled in him the values of hard work and education. Cash is a devout Hindu, and consistent with his faith, he's shown respect to people of all faiths. Cash 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 JD, and an international law certificate from the University College of London Faculty of Laws. Cash 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. Cash clearly demonstrated a devotion to upholding the rule of law and defending the rights of individuals. Cash led the defense of Jose Bedrago in United States v. Bedrago, a high-profile case in Florida in 2015. Bedrago was one of the Colombian nationals arrested in a major drug bust involving Operation Back Rim. Cash and his co-counsel successfully argued that key evidence was withheld by the prosecution, leading to Bedrago's release. I suspect some of Cash's disdain for prosecutorial misconduct stemmed from this experience. Cash was hired as a senior counsel on the House Permanent Select Subcommittee on Intelligence Committee 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, Cash, Congress is where righteous investigations go to die. I hope you're ready. I think Cash 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, Cash has written articles and books on national security, law, and governance. Through his work as an author, Cash 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 Cash 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 enemy's 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 Cash Patel. When President Trump announced his intent to nominate Cash, I contacted Trey Gowdy and others who worked with Cash, and they gave me glowing recommendations. So I called Cash on December 2nd and 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, Cash 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 in this committee and members off the committee. Chair Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, friends and colleagues on the committee, I've completed my due diligence of Cash Patel, and I am honored to provide my strongest recommendation for his confirmation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[00:38:25] Speaker 1: 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? Raise your hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give to the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do, Mr. Chair. Okay, you may proceed.

[00:39:00] Speaker 4: 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 is also here, Nisha. She also traversed the oceans just to be with me here today. It means the world that you guys are here. Jessi Grishna. 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 worldview. 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 emigrate 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 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 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 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 eight 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 the 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 a 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 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. 40% 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 them to allow it to run away. We must tackle violent crime. Just in 2023 alone, there was 100,000 rapes, 100,000 drug overdoses and 17,000 homicides. The priority of the FBI, if I'm 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 traveled here and my entire team that has made this day possible. God bless America and I look forward to your questions.

[00:45:51] Speaker 5: Seven minutes first round, is that right?

[00:45:55] Speaker 1: Three minutes to 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?

[00:46:26] Speaker 4: 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.

[00:46:56] Speaker 1: 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?

[00:47:51] Speaker 4: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I share in your beliefs about the importance of whistleblowers.

[00:47:56] Speaker 1: 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?

[00:48:09] Speaker 4: Senator, if I'm confirmed, it will not.

[00:48:13] Speaker 1: You and I have heard a lot of criticism about various statements about January 6th. 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 6th offenders without, 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 6th of this committee and how do you respond to critics who say that you're anti-law enforcement?

[00:49:00] Speaker 4: 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 6 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 6th, 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 6th, I said the same thing about acts against law enforcement. The Capitol Police, who I have 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's 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.

[00:50:42] Speaker 1: 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, Mr. 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?

[00:51:06] Speaker 4: 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, are military and want to secure border.

[00:51:29] Speaker 1: Over the past four years, the FBI and Justice Department have weaponized law enforcement towards 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 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?

[00:52:12] Speaker 4: 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.

[00:53:12] Speaker 1: Senator Durbin.

[00:53:14] Speaker 2: 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 Huddle. Are you familiar with him? I'm sorry, what was the last name? Matthew Huddle. If you could remind me, Senator. 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 three-year-old child to a point where the poor kid couldn't even sit down for a week. Mr. Huddle was one of the demonstrators who came to the Capitol on January 6. He was incarcerated and 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's 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? Thank you, Ranking Member.

[00:55:06] Speaker 4: A couple of things on that. One, the power of the presidential pardon is just that, the president.

[00:55:12] Speaker 2: I concede he has the authority. I'm asking was he wrong to do it?

[00:55:15] Speaker 4: 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, 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.

[00:55:37] Speaker 2: 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?

[00:55:49] Speaker 4: 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, Agent Kohler's and Williams' family, deserve 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.

[00:56:20] Speaker 2: Leonard Pelletier 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. He killed two FBI agents. That's true. 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?

[00:56:48] Speaker 4: Senator, America will be safe when we don't have 200,000 drug overdoses in two years. America will be safe when we don't have 50 homicides in a day.

[00:56:57] Speaker 2: So, you just won't answer the question. I don't think we're safer. Matthew Huddle 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 were wanted in states, members of this committee. Let me move to another topic, if I can. Tell me about your J6 choir. What is that?

[00:57:22] Speaker 4: Well, it's not my choir. It's simply a recording that was utilized to raise funds for families in need of nonviolent offenders.

[00:57:31] Speaker 2: Who sings on this recording?

[00:57:33] Speaker 4: I don't know, Senator. What did you have to do with it? Simply to raise funds to assist families of nonviolent offenders whose kids needed college education payments and whose rent needed being paid.

[00:57:47] Speaker 2: My understanding is that the performers on this J6 choir were the rioters who are in prison.

[00:57:53] Speaker 4: I'm not aware of that, sir. I didn't have anything to do with the recording.

[00:57:57] Speaker 2: You weren't aware of who made the recording? No, Senator. That's interesting. Did you receive any money for selling copies of that music or that recording? Absolutely not. Okay. You do have a foundation, though, do you not?

[00:58:13] Speaker 4: I'm very proud of the Cash Foundation and the 1.3 million dollars 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.

[00:58:28] Speaker 2: 1-0 LLC, are you familiar with that?

[00:58:31] Speaker 4: Sorry? 1-0 LLC. I believe, Senator, you're referring to the LLC that one of the individuals has his private business with. Is it part of the Cash Foundation in any way? Only in that one of the members of the board has that LLC for his outside business.

[00:58:53] Speaker 2: Andrew Ellis? I believe that's his name, yes. Yes. Do you know how much was paid to him from your charitable work?

[00:59:00] Speaker 4: 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 use digital marketing campaigns, and I believe we paid a digital marketing company through 1-0 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.

[00:59:21] Speaker 2: We will be going through the details of your foundation and the expenditures with the questions for a record that the chairman has mentioned. I look forward to it. You'll have a chance to answer those under oath. Mr. Patel, you frequently associated with and sometimes praised extremist figures with the well-documented histories of racism, anti-Semitism, conspiracies, and the like. In September of 2023, you appeared with Laura Loomer at an event promoting your book, 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. Giving all of this, why did you associate with Ms. Loomer?

[01:00:33] Speaker 4: 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.

[01:00:54] Speaker 2: Are you familiar with a Stu Peters? Does that name ring a bell?

[01:01:01] Speaker 4: I'm sorry.

[01:01:02] Speaker 2: Are you familiar with Mr. Stu Peters?

[01:01:07] Speaker 4: Not off the top of my head.

[01:01:09] Speaker 2: He made eight separate appearances on his podcast. He promoted outrageous conspiracy theories and worked with a prominent neo-Nazi. They're 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?

[01:01:29] Speaker 4: 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 devalue 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.

[01:01:48] Speaker 6: Senator Graham. Thank you. We'll eventually talk about the FBI. That's the job you're up here for, right? Have you ever been subject to racism as an individual?

[01:02:04] Speaker 4: Unfortunately, Senator, yes. I want to get into those details with my family here.

[01:02:08] Speaker 6: Let's get into a few of them.

[01:02:11] Speaker 4: Tell me about it. Well, if you look at the record from January 6th, 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. In that threat, I was called a detestable, and I 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.

[01:03:04] Speaker 6: Okay. Growing up, were you subject to racism?

[01:03:09] Speaker 4: Yes, sir.

[01:03:11] Speaker 6: 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?

[01:03:23] Speaker 4: I am, Senator.

[01:03:24] Speaker 6: 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 work for Mr. Nunes over on the House side? David Nunes?

[01:03:52] Speaker 4: Sorry?

[01:03:54] Speaker 6: Are you familiar with this memo by the Foreign Intelligence Service Act abuses? Yes. The Department of Justice? Absolutely. Did you help write this memo?

[01:04:02] Speaker 4: I did as a staffer.

[01:04:03] Speaker 6: Okay. I'll put this in the record.

[01:04:05] Speaker 4: Thank you.

[01:04:05] Speaker 6: In this memo, you kind of dissected the abuses of Crossfire Hurricane, right?

[01:04:12] Speaker 4: I did, Senator.

[01:04:13] Speaker 6: And the Mueller investigation. So the Crossfire Hurricane investigators, two of them were Strzok and Page. Are you familiar with them? I am, Senator. 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 personally 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?

[01:05:02] Speaker 4: Well, you don't have to take my word for it. That statement, along with the statements from the sources...

[01:05:07] Speaker 6: Are those days over in the FBI, you hope?

[01:05:09] Speaker 4: Well, if they're not, they will be.

[01:05:11] Speaker 6: Okay, good. You know who Carter Page was? I do, Senator. Do you know that the FBI secured warrants against him on four different occasions? Yes, Senator. Do you know that the information that they relied upon came from the Steele dossier? I do. Was it you that were able to find out that the Steele dossier was a bunch of crap? Yes, Senator.

[01:05:32] Speaker 4: We followed the money and we exposed the fraud that was the Steele dossier.

[01:05:35] Speaker 6: And the primary subsource was Ignor Danchenko, right?

[01:05:40] Speaker 4: That's correct, Senator.

[01:05:42] Speaker 6: And he was actually a Russian analyst.

[01:05:43] Speaker 4: That's right.

[01:05:44] Speaker 6: 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 subsource 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 of 2017. And they got two more warrants after that. That's correct. Are you aware that the FBI had volumes information that the Steele dossier was a bunch of bullshit and nobody ever told anybody at the top? I am, sir. We exposed... Or they lied about being told. That's correct. So are you aware of the fact that the FISA court rebuked the FBI? Are you aware of the fact that a FBI lawyer went to jail because he misled the court by manipulating an email from the CIA? I am. 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? Yes, sir. Do you think that's why you're in this chair today? To fix that? I think that's a big... Without Crossfire Hurricane, this guy wouldn't be here. And my friends on the other side, like pulling teeth, Horwitz investigation, the inspector general, labeled this as fraudulent at its core, mismanaged at its core, running stop signs. At every turn they went forward when they should have 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 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 BS 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?

[01:09:08] Speaker 4: Yes, Senator, they are.

[01:09:10] Speaker 6: Are you proud of what you did to find all that? Absolutely. Do you think that's why you're here today is to make sure that never happens again?

[01:09:17] Speaker 4: The American people deserve just that.

[01:09:19] Speaker 6: Thank you.

[01:09:20] Speaker 7: Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Patel. I remember January 6th, colleagues running through our holes 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-person 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, end quote, and 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 Advisor, 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?

[01:13:29] Speaker 4: Senator, that's a partial quotation.

[01:13:31] Speaker 7: But it's correct.

[01:13:33] Speaker 4: In part.

[01:13:35] Speaker 7: 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. Is that you, Kash Patel, re-truthed, re-posting that at the top of that page?

[01:14:02] Speaker 4: Senator, I had nothing to do with the creation of that.

[01:14:05] Speaker 7: Is that you re-posting it, was my question. And that's me at the top. You said FBI agents were responsible for the violence on January 6th. And I quote you here, beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that what you said?

[01:14:21] Speaker 4: That's completely incorrect. And I appreciate the opportunity to address that.

[01:14:24] Speaker 7: I'll give you an opportunity in writing. But this is my time now.

[01:14:28] Speaker 4: Have at it.

[01:14:28] Speaker 7: An inspector attorney general investigation found that that was false. And you said we should impeach judges who rule the world. Is that you, Kash Patel, re-truthed, re-posting that at the top of that page? Is that you, Kash Patel, re-truthed, re-posting that at the top of that page? And I appreciate the opportunity to address that.

[01:14:41] Speaker 1: And I appreciate the opportunity to address that.

[01:14:42] Speaker 7: When this nominee tries to explain all this away, keep one thing in mind. 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, there are 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 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 one second back.

[01:17:05] Speaker 1: 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.

[01:17:16] Speaker 4: 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 is an 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 a director of the FBI, is a de-weaponized, de-politicized system of law enforcement completely devoted to rigorous obedience of the Constitution and a singular standard of justice.

[01:17:55] Speaker 1: Before I call on Senator Cornyn, I'd like to say that we've heard about the January 6th 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 Lexus and her mother, Swell and Roberts. Adrian Peeler, a 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 for profit detention centers. And Alex Saab, who laundered illicit proceeds for narcotics terrorists. Nicholas Madero, and was a key connection between Venezuela and Iran and five family members of his own family. President Biden did that. Senator.

[01:19:25] Speaker 8: Welcome, Mr. Patel. Do you believe America is an exceptional nation? It's the greatest nation. Your family went through a lot to get here. They sure did. 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? It is one of the fundamental precepts that determines that.

[01:19:53] Speaker 4: And why is that? And why is that? Because without a singular application of a rule of law, we go back to the Uganda that my father fled in Idi Amin.

[01:20:03] Speaker 8: 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 project of James Comey at the FBI and the abuse of intelligence tools like Title One of Section 702 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? Absolutely, Senator. Without regard to partisan affiliation or politics? Absolutely. 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?

[01:21:37] Speaker 4: Having been responsible for the collection and predication and promulgation of that intelligence, I firmly believe he and every president must have it.

[01:21:46] Speaker 8: And so you would not support any impractical or perhaps immaterial or unworkable ways to inhibit the flow of that information to President Trump?

[01:22:01] Speaker 4: No, I would not.

[01:22:03] Speaker 8: 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. 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. 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 terms. 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?

[01:23:17] Speaker 4: Yes, Senator, I do.

[01:23:18] Speaker 8: 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. You understand that what probable cause is required, what sort of evidence is required to be produced to 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?

[01:24:11] Speaker 4: 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.

[01:24:32] Speaker 8: I actually have heard it's as high as 60 percent, but it's a lot. It's a lot.

[01:24:37] Speaker 4: 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 comportive 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.

[01:25:22] Speaker 8: Well, and Director Ratcliffe said that he did not believe that, given the context of 702 collection, whether a foreign target communicates with a U.S. person, that it would there be sufficient evidence to go to the foreign intelligence surveillance court or any other court to demonstrate probable cause. Do you agree with that?

[01:25:47] Speaker 1: Yeah.

[01:25:48] Speaker 4: Just in real time, Senator, excuse me. It's almost impossible to make that function and serve the national no-fail mission.

[01:25:55] Speaker 8: I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out the lack of trust. Any of these tools can be abused 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. Do you agree with that? Absolutely, Senator. 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?

[01:26:41] Speaker 4: 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. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.

[01:26:52] Speaker 9: 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 our work and sacrifices, and they deserve a director who's 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?

[01:27:46] Speaker 4: I don't have that statement in front of me. Okay.

[01:27:48] Speaker 9: That was from August 27th, 2023 Thrived Times show. I'll put it on the record. These claims made in that statement were rejected by courts, including by Republican judges. Is that correct?

[01:28:03] Speaker 4: I don't have enough of the facts in front of me to make that assessment.

[01:28:05] Speaker 9: 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 courts. 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?

[01:28:25] Speaker 4: I don't think that's accurate.

[01:28:26] Speaker 9: Okay. Joe Pact podcast, March, 2024. We'll put it on the record. I was there. The police officers were heroes that day. 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.

[01:28:50] Speaker 4: I believe you're referencing a post that was shown in part earlier. I don't have it in front of me.

[01:28:56] Speaker 9: 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?

[01:29:31] Speaker 4: I'm not a doctor, so no.

[01:29:32] Speaker 9: But you did promote this supplement and told people that it would reverse or mitigate the side effects from COVID vaccine.

[01:29:41] Speaker 4: Did I give people an opportunity to make an independent choice for what's best for their families? Yes.

[01:29:45] Speaker 9: You did that last year, correct?

[01:29:47] Speaker 4: I don't have it in front of me again, Senator.

[01:29:50] Speaker 9: 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 statue violation, for criminally organizing the United States government to break the law, to rig presidential elections. Did you say that? Yes or no?

[01:30:28] Speaker 4: Senator, you're reading a partial statement, so I'm unable to fully respond.

[01:30:32] Speaker 9: 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. One of the names on your list was Bill Barr. 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 enemy's 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?

[01:31:18] Speaker 4: Well, it's not whatever we want to call it, Senator, with all due respect. It's not an enemy's list. That is a total mischaracterization.

[01:31:24] Speaker 9: I ask you, I actually use the words you use for the list, which was deep state, right? That's what you put at the time. It is a glossary in the back. 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. I have no personal vendetta against Bill Barr. Okay, he said about you, 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?

[01:32:13] Speaker 4: Absolutely not.

[01:32:15] Speaker 9: As you know, he repeatedly told the President in no uncertain terms that he did not see evidence of fraud that would have affected the outcome of the election. Did you say in February of 2021 that the election stuff was never my job and I stayed all of it all, I stayed out of that stuff?

[01:32:32] Speaker 4: Again, I don't know what comment you're referring to, but I'm sure you're reading a piece of something.

[01:32:36] Speaker 9: 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 US and switch votes for Trump from Biden to from Trump to Biden? Is that true?

[01:33:03] Speaker 4: What was the date?

[01:33:04] Speaker 9: That was out of December of 2020.

[01:33:07] Speaker 4: I was Chief of Staff to the Department of Defense, so I don't believe that's accurate in any way.

[01:33:11] Speaker 9: That came out of testimony before Congress. I will give it to you.

[01:33:15] Speaker 1: Thank you.

[01:33:17] Speaker 9: Have you referred to the media as the most powerful enemy of the United States that they have ever seen? Is that right?

[01:33:23] Speaker 4: Again, you're reading a quote. I take that you're reading it accurately.

[01:33:26] Speaker 9: H2C PAC 22324, 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?

[01:33:42] Speaker 4: That's a partial statement of what I said.

[01:33:44] Speaker 9: Steve Bannon's podcast. You also said you would put the entire fake news mafia press corps on your list. Is that correct? Is that what you said?

[01:33:54] Speaker 4: I don't have that in front of me.

[01:33:55] Speaker 9: Benny Johnson's podcast 82123. 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?

[01:34:43] Speaker 4: The American public's trust in it is at 40 percent. That's an all time low.

[01:34:48] Speaker 9: Did you say that the FBI headquarters should be shut down and reopened as a museum of the deep state?

[01:34:55] Speaker 1: Mr.

[01:34:55] Speaker 4: Chairman, are we allowed to go an extra time?

[01:34:57] Speaker 1: Let's see. You got you get a second round before I call on Senator Lee.

[01:35:02] Speaker 9: Could you 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? As a museum, did he say that the headquarters should be shut down? I deserve an answer to that question. He is asking to be head of the FBI and he said that their headquarters should be shut down.

[01:35:23] Speaker 3: Mr.

[01:35:24] Speaker 1: Chair, parliamentary inquiry. You got anything you want to say, Mr. Patel, before I go on to Senator Lee? Simply this.

[01:35:31] Speaker 4: 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.

[01:36:06] Speaker 9: Chairman. I am quoting his own words from September of 2024. It is his own words. It is not some conspiracy. It is what Mr. Patel actually said himself. Facts matter.

[01:36:21] Speaker 1: You forget that you had three minutes in the next round to say what you just said.

[01:36:25] Speaker 9: Okay, I'll say him again.

[01:36:27] Speaker 1: Okay, before I call Lee.

[01:36:29] Speaker 3: Mr. Chair, just parliamentary inquiry. It was on time. It wasn't disputing any of the debate, but I intend to keep to my seven 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, that was actually 10 minutes, Mr. Chair.

[01:36:48] Speaker 1: 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 to shut them up. Mr. Chairman. You're a wise man, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr.

[01:37:01] Speaker 10: Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Before we go to Lee. Mr. Chairman. Yes, what do you want?

[01:37:10] Speaker 11: 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 three minutes.

[01:37:21] Speaker 10: Well.

[01:37:21] Speaker 11: Now my friend Senator Klobuchar with three minutes over.

[01:37:24] Speaker 1: So, I hear 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.

[01:37:36] Speaker 11: 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 three minutes over, I want my extra three minutes.

[01:37:45] Speaker 1: Well, let's see. Let's see if it's abused by anybody else before we make that decision.

[01:37:49] Speaker 11: I'm just telling you, I'm going to abuse it.

[01:37:52] Speaker 10: Well, I'm not going to let you abuse it.

[01:37:56] Speaker 1: You're a good man, Mr. Chairman. Before I go to Lee, I want to put a record 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 Patel's nomination. Any objection? It's ordered. Mr. Lee.

[01:38:44] Speaker 12: Mr. Patel, while we're talking about your words, let's talk about the cowards in uniform comment for a moment, can we? Please. Would you like to tell us what that was? Put it in context to help the committee understand what that was about.

[01:38:57] Speaker 4: I think it's important. Thank you, Senator. During that time on January 6th, 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 6th. 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, employment, and National Guard acted swiftly and without undue delay.

[01:40:04] Speaker 12: So that's what you were talking about. And that's why you had the reference to the UCMJ. Tell us what that means.

[01:40:11] Speaker 4: 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.

[01:40:31] Speaker 12: OK, 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. Yes, sir. Those were the cowards in uniform. Those people who didn't do what they were supposed to do and allowed people were put in danger as a result. That's correct, Senator. OK, 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? Yes, sir. 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. That warrant has to describe with particularity the persons or places to be searched or to be seized and to connect them up with 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. That's correct. 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, 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? Under current law, I believe so, Senator. 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 their 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 deciding 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?

[01:44:30] Speaker 4: As you alluded to, the FISA court, it's not me deciding it. The FISA court put out a report in 22 or 23 where 255,000 illegal improper queries of American citizens had occurred, 255,000 reasons why the American people don't trust it. That's what we must work together, Congress and me, if I'm confirmed as FBI director, restore that trust and protect the mission.

[01:44:53] Speaker 12: Music to my ears because I've been a US senator for 14 years. I've been on this committee the entire time. You're 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.

[01:45:55] Speaker 13: Thank you. 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 advice 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?

[01:47:36] Speaker 4: 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. So the FBI works for the White House? No, the FBI is a member of the Department of Justice and has been the longstanding application.

[01:47:58] Speaker 13: And who does the Department of Justice work for?

[01:48:00] Speaker 4: They're in the executive branch, as all members do at the White House.

[01:48:05] Speaker 13: 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?

[01:48:35] Speaker 4: 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 that 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.

[01:49:03] Speaker 13: So if FBI agents brought to you a factual, legal basis, 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?

[01:49:22] Speaker 4: 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.

[01:49:41] Speaker 13: 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?

[01:50:04] Speaker 4: Senator, my answer is simply I would never do anything unconstitutional or unlawful, and I never have in my 16 years of government service.

[01:50:11] Speaker 13: Would you be willing to resign the post of FBI Director if pressed and given no choice but to obey the order or resign?

[01:50:19] Speaker 4: Senator, I will always obey the law.

[01:50:21] Speaker 13: Does obeying the law require you to, as Attorney General Bell said, as FBI Director Wray said, refuse the order or resign?

[01:50:32] Speaker 4: 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 the 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. Mr.

[01:50:53] Speaker 13: 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?

[01:51:31] Speaker 4: 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 in this country that the FBI is going to be busy going forward preventing 100,000 overdoses, 100,000 rapes, and 17,000 homicides.

[01:51:50] Speaker 13: We agree that prosecuting violent crime 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 other statements you've made about instead using it to pursue those who might be viewed as political opponents.

[01:52:04] Speaker 4: And as I told you in your office, I have no interest, no desire, and will not, if confirmed, go backwards. 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.

[01:52:19] Speaker 13: 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 look 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?

[01:52:53] Speaker 4: 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 and 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, D.C. 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. I will do that over and over and over again because the American people deserve the resources not in Washington, D.C., but in the rest of the country.

[01:53:47] Speaker 13: 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.

[01:54:00] Speaker 1: 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 will have no doubt that Kash Patel will serve our nation in this important post with integrity and tireless efforts to protect the American people. Senator Hawley.

[01:54:42] Speaker 14: 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?

[01:55:05] Speaker 4: I don't believe so, sir.

[01:55:07] Speaker 14: 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?

[01:55:28] Speaker 4: I'm familiar with that memo, sir.

[01:55:29] Speaker 14: 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?

[01:55:49] Speaker 4: If I'm confirmed, Senator, yes.

[01:55:51] Speaker 14: 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 predecessors sit right where you're sitting, and he has repeatedly, repeatedly lied to, there's no other word for it, lied to this committee. He told us initially that it didn't happen, that the FBI didn't make any lists 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?

[01:56:47] Speaker 4: 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.

[01:57:03] Speaker 14: 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 five 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?

[01:58:08] Speaker 4: 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 houses of worship, in my book, will never be domestic terrorists.

[01:58:21] Speaker 14: I'm delighted to hear you say that. You're familiar, I am sure, with this memorandum issued by the attorney general, 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?

[01:59:30] Speaker 4: If confirmed in pursuance of your congressional request, absolutely, Senator.

[01:59:34] Speaker 14: 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 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?

[01:59:51] Speaker 4: There can never be a targeting by law enforcement just based on their people's faiths.

[01:59:54] Speaker 14: 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?

[02:01:14] Speaker 4: 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 dollars, in the seven 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.

[02:01:40] Speaker 14: 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?

[02:02:03] Speaker 4: No, Senator.

[02:02:04] Speaker 14: Will you put an end to this, Mr. Patel, if you are confirmed at the FBI?

[02:02:09] Speaker 4: 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.

[02:02:17] Speaker 14: 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, 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?

[02:02:52] Speaker 4: Senator, I will always follow the law.

[02:02:54] Speaker 14: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[02:02:57] Speaker 1: Senator Blumenthal is next. I want to say, when he's done, so let's see, the 30-minute break would make it about 1225 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? Okay. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal.

[02:03:27] Speaker 15: 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?

[02:04:12] Speaker 4: Senator, I appreciate the time to visit with you.

[02:04:14] Speaker 15: It is a yes or no answer. And it is your first test.

[02:04:19] Speaker 4: Senator, every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard and no one will be terminated for case assignments.

[02:04:25] Speaker 15: 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.

[02:04:39] Speaker 4: All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution.

[02:04:43] Speaker 15: Those individuals deserve to be protected from Trump retribution. That was your first test. You failed it.

[02:04:51] Speaker 4: By saying all FBI employees should be protected?

[02:04:54] Speaker 15: 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?

[02:05:17] Speaker 4: It's been referenced earlier, yes.

[02:05:19] Speaker 15: And you know about the song that, in fact, you produced, you promoted, and you used to, as you put it, support, raise awareness and support for the political prisoners still locked in jail. Those J6 choir, were they political prisoners?

[02:05:49] Speaker 4: I don't know everyone in the J6 choir.

[02:05:51] Speaker 15: That's what you said.

[02:05:54] Speaker 4: That's not how I read it, Senator.

[02:05:56] Speaker 15: This is your tweet. That's your whole statement. 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.

[02:06:25] Speaker 4: And all proceeds were given away to charity to help families in need.

[02:06:27] Speaker 15: And you call them political prisoners? Julian Cater? Do you know what he did? I don't know who that is, Senator. Well, he's one of the J6 prison choir.

[02:06:38] Speaker 4: You seem to know more about it than I do.

[02:06:39] Speaker 15: And 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. Cater admitted his violence. He pleaded guilty to assaulting political officer, a police officer. Do you believe that Julian Cater was a political prisoner?

[02:07:18] Speaker 4: 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've never once advocated for political violence or violence against law enforcement.

[02:07:35] Speaker 15: 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?

[02:07:55] Speaker 4: Same answer, Senator.

[02:07:57] Speaker 15: How about Jordan Mink, another member of the J6 choir?

[02:08:00] Speaker 4: I don't know who he is.

[02:08:03] Speaker 15: James McGrew, a political prisoner?

[02:08:05] Speaker 4: I don't know who that is.

[02:08:08] Speaker 15: 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?

[02:08:26] Speaker 4: 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 the people who 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 de-politicized. You have my commitment to do that. In my office, 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.

[02:09:01] Speaker 15: 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.

[02:09:28] Speaker 12: Without objection.

[02:09:30] Speaker 15: You glorified, you promoted, you supported these individuals. Ronald Sadlin, he struck an officer in the head, hand and shoulders and grabbed another officer. Was he a political prisoner?

[02:09:45] Speaker 4: I don't know who that is, Senator.

[02:09:47] Speaker 15: 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 in the FBI put their lives on the line every day. I've worked with them as a United States attorney for four and a half 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.

[02:10:36] Speaker 12: 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.

[02:10:46] Speaker 16: 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 four 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's 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 6th, which even in the annals of ridiculous attacks, this one really takes the cake. Let's just focus on some facts. Let me ask you a question. What role did you occupy in the days immediately before January 6th?

[02:13:30] Speaker 4: Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense.

[02:13:32] Speaker 16: You were the Chief of Staff at the Department of Defense? Yes, sir. So to be clear, you were not rioting at the Capitol?

[02:13:40] Speaker 4: No, sir.

[02:13:43] Speaker 16: Where were you physically on January 6th?

[02:13:46] Speaker 4: In the office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon.

[02:13:50] Speaker 16: And what were you doing on that day?

[02:13:53] Speaker 4: 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 D.C. and the Speaker of the House.

[02:14:05] Speaker 16: Now, how many days in advance were you working to prepare the Department of Defense to help secure the Capitol on January 6th?

[02:14:12] Speaker 4: 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 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.

[02:14:37] Speaker 16: 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?

[02:14:47] Speaker 4: I believe those letters are well documented. Numerous instances, and numerous of those instances, those requests were shut down.

[02:14:57] Speaker 16: Now, am I correct that the Capitol Sergeant at Arms said assistance was unnecessary?

[02:15:01] Speaker 4: That's correct, Senator.

[02:15:04] Speaker 16: Who did the Sergeant at Arms report to?

[02:15:06] Speaker 4: The Speaker of the House.

[02:15:08] Speaker 16: That would have been Nancy Pelosi at the time. Is that correct?

[02:15:11] Speaker 4: Yes, Senator.

[02:15:13] Speaker 16: And would that also be Chuck Schumer, then the Senate Majority Leader?

[02:15:18] Speaker 4: The Sergeant at Arms, yes, Senator, reports up there.

[02:15:22] Speaker 16: Did Mayor Bowser, the Democrat-elected mayor in D.C., either request or allow National Guard assistance?

[02:15:31] Speaker 4: She put in writing on the days leading up to January 6th, a declination for National Guard additional support. And that letter is available publicly to the world.

[02:15:40] Speaker 16: And just to speak English for folks at home, a declination meant she said no, don't send National Guard. Is that right?

[02:15:47] Speaker 4: Yes, sir.

[02:15:50] Speaker 16: 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?

[02:15:58] Speaker 4: All of it.

[02:15:59] Speaker 16: And by the way, is that true whether the violence is right-wing or left-wing or anywhere else?

[02:16:05] Speaker 4: There is no discriminating between types of violence against law enforcement.

[02:16:10] Speaker 16: And do you believe those who assault and commit violence against law enforcement should be prosecuted and should be sent to jail?

[02:16:18] Speaker 4: Especially those that kill them.

[02:16:21] Speaker 16: Let me ask you, how many years have you worked in public service?

[02:16:25] Speaker 4: About 16, Senator.

[02:16:27] Speaker 16: And how many years have you worked in particular in law enforcement and prosecution and national security?

[02:16:33] Speaker 4: Over a decade, Senator.

[02:16:36] Speaker 16: 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 6th, 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?

[02:17:20] Speaker 4: 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 into the FBI. And redirect resources and making sure that occurs every single day.

[02:17:35] Speaker 16: 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.

[02:17:50] Speaker 12: Thank you, sir. Senator Hirono.

[02:17:54] Speaker 17: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, as part of my responsibility as a member of this committee, 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?

[02:18:17] Speaker 4: No, Senator, I have not.

[02:18:18] Speaker 17: Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?

[02:18:23] Speaker 4: No, Senator, I have not.

[02:18:25] Speaker 17: Mr. Patel, you have been a champion of the January 6th Prison Choir. You have stated that the choir's members were, quote, incarcerated as a result of their involvement in the January 6th, 2021 protest for election integrity, end quote. And one of the choir members is Julian Cater, who pled guilty. He pled guilty to assaulting officers with a deadly weapon. On January 6th, 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. Cater protesting for election integrity? Yes or no?

[02:19:11] Speaker 4: I don't know who that is.

[02:19:13] Speaker 17: 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?

[02:19:25] Speaker 4: I don't know who that is.

[02:19:26] Speaker 17: That is not responsive to my question. You're not willing to say that. But you are willing to describe this choir as consisting of people who are protesting for election integrity, and yet you testify you don't know them. 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?

[02:19:57] Speaker 4: I have no plans in going backwards. I have plans in safeguarding this- How about James Comey?

[02:20:01] Speaker 17: Do you plan to investigate him?

[02:20:03] Speaker 4: Senator, every investigation will be subject to the same legal standard.

[02:20:07] Speaker 17: Do you plan to investigate James Comey, who's on your list?

[02:20:12] Speaker 4: I have no intentions of going backwards. How about Bill Barr? In every intention of using the Constitution.

[02:20:16] Speaker 17: 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?

[02:20:24] Speaker 4: No one that did not break the law will be investigated.

[02:20:28] Speaker 17: No answers to any of those. Okay. Over 1 million Americans died 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 were- would detox them of the COVID-19 vaccine. Mr. Patel, did you make money by promoting these supplements?

[02:21:06] Speaker 4: Senator, do you know of any individuals who died as a result of complications from the vaccine? Again, you- Because I do.

[02:21:12] Speaker 17: Are you unable to answer my question, which is a straightforward, did you make money by promoting these supplements?

[02:21:17] Speaker 4: All of my financial disclosures have been made to this committee.

[02:21:20] Speaker 17: I would like to hear your answer, yes or no. Did you make money? I don't have those financial disclosures in front of me. This is my third and last time I'm going to ask you that question.

[02:21:27] Speaker 4: You have that information.

[02:21:28] Speaker 17: So you refuse to answer the question.

[02:21:30] Speaker 4: I answered 1,300 pages.

[02:21:33] Speaker 17: You are- 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?

[02:22:12] Speaker 4: President Biden's election was certified. He was sworn in and he served as the president of the United States.

[02:22:18] Speaker 17: Once again, the people who are 100% 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 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?

[02:23:01] Speaker 4: Not unless private citizens have been defamed. That's their right.

[02:23:05] Speaker 17: You said that you would be going after the media. So I want to know whether you plan to do that, go after the free media.

[02:23:14] Speaker 4: I can't go after the media for other people. That's a decision they have.

[02:23:18] Speaker 17: 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 on all and end all ties with the Trump Media and Technology Group?

[02:23:49] Speaker 4: Yes, Senator, as I've stated to you in writing.

[02:23:52] Speaker 17: Over the last two years, the FBI has dedicated resources to Operation Not Forgotten, which works to address violent crime in Indian country. If confirmed as FBI director, would you continue the important work of Operation Not Forgotten?

[02:24:13] Speaker 4: 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.

[02:24:22] Speaker 17: 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.

[02:24:53] Speaker 12: 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 question.

[02:25:03] Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say for the record that Chairman Grassley is the greatest chairman God ever put breath in. And would somebody please tell Grassley I said that? You've made a lot of people mad, haven't you, Mr. Patel?

[02:25:29] Speaker 4: Seems so, Senator.

[02:25:32] Speaker 11: You think maybe you've made the right people mad?

[02:25:37] Speaker 4: As my FBI agents, the BRIC agents told me when I was running cases with them across this country and around the world, if you're not taking off some people, you're not doing your job right.

[02:25:48] Speaker 11: My colleague and friend, Senator Durbin, called you a conspiracy theorist. You remember that? I do, Senator. You were instrumental in revealing that the Trump-Russia election collusion hoax was a hoax, weren't you?

[02:26:15] Speaker 4: Yes, sir. I was a lead investigator.

[02:26:23] Speaker 11: Sounds to me like we need to get some new conspiracy theories because all the old ones turned out to be true.

[02:26:31] Speaker 4: Facts matter, Senator.

[02:26:32] Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean, conspiracy theorists are up something like 37 to nothing. You're not saying that everybody at the FBI is bad, are you?

[02:26:45] Speaker 4: Never said that. I've overwhelmingly said multiple times that 98% 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. Who put away the Unabomber? The FBI.

[02:27:07] Speaker 11: Who put away Timothy McVeigh and his Stalin's stomach for blood?

[02:27:14] Speaker 4: Brick agents at the FBI.

[02:27:21] Speaker 11: Who helped investigate Jussie Smollett, who, in an effort of self-aggrandizement, set back the fight for minority rights for years?

[02:27:34] Speaker 4: I think that was local authorities.

[02:27:36] Speaker 11: It was the FBI that opened an investigation, wasn't it?

[02:27:39] Speaker 4: Eventually, yes, Senator.

[02:27:40] Speaker 11: There have been or were some bad people in the FBI, there have been or were some bad people at the FBI and the Justice Department, which work hand in glove, weren't there?

[02:27:51] Speaker 4: Unfortunately, yes, Senator.

[02:27:56] Speaker 11: Secretary Clinton's lawyer, a gentleman by the name of Michael Sussman, 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?

[02:28:13] Speaker 4: Not just that, but what a political party was doing with a secure compartmented information facility with direct access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[02:28:21] Speaker 11: Mr. Hunter Biden cheated on his income taxes. Didn't pay $1.4 million in income taxes over four 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?

[02:28:53] Speaker 4: The American people are entitled to a singular form of justice and the details to every public corruption investigation.

[02:28:59] Speaker 11: You remember Peter Strzok? I sure do. One of the lead investigators for Mr. Mueller's Russian collusion hoax?

[02:29:10] Speaker 4: Yes, Senator.

[02:29:13] Speaker 11: Do you remember when the inspector general, not his colleagues, turned him in? 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 quote. Remember that?

[02:29:33] Speaker 4: He did that while employed at the FBI while working on that investigation.

[02:29:36] Speaker 11: 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. You remember that? Peter Strzok said that. 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.

[02:30:13] Speaker 4: I do remember their insurance policy.

[02:30:15] Speaker 11: And then Mr. Strzok testified in front of God and country that never had his political beliefs impacted his work. You believe in the tooth fairy?

[02:30:29] Speaker 4: When I was a kid.

[02:30:32] Speaker 11: You believe Jimmy Hoffa died of natural causes?

[02:30:35] Speaker 4: He's also not in the end zone of Giants Stadium.

[02:30:37] Speaker 11: 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?

[02:30:51] Speaker 4: Absolutely.

[02:30:53] Speaker 11: 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?

[02:31:15] Speaker 4: 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.

[02:31:26] Speaker 11: 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? That's correct. And we're going to hold you accountable for that.

[02:31:38] Speaker 4: I hope you do.

[02:31:39] Speaker 11: Now, there's some good people at the FBI. Lots. 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?

[02:32:10] Speaker 4: I commit to you have confirmed, Senator, every single day, 24-7, 365, the FBI will be the premier law enforcement agency in the world.

[02:32:20] Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[02:32:21] Speaker 14: We'll now recess for a 30-minute lunch break. We'll return at approximately 1240 and we will resume with Senator Booker's questions.

[02:32:32] Speaker 1: Thank you.

[03:04:40] Speaker 18: you Good day, Mr. Peter Booker. 12 prosecutors, career prosecutors, were involved in an investigation in prosecuting the cases against President Trump and were recently fired. Some of those that were involved were involved in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Do you know who Brett Reynolds is?

[03:05:13] Speaker 4: Maybe, but it doesn't ring a bell at this point.

[03:05:16] Speaker 18: You're under oath. You have no recollection of who Brett Reynolds is?

[03:05:18] Speaker 4: You could provide me with a little more context I could possibly remember.

[03:05:22] Speaker 18: Are you aware of any plans or discussions to punish in any way, including termination, FBI agents or personnel associated with Trump investigations?

[03:05:33] Speaker 4: Senator, just to be clear, I did not participate in any of those DOJ decisions.

[03:05:37] Speaker 18: 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? I'm not aware.

[03:05:50] Speaker 19: Thank you, Senator.

[03:05:51] Speaker 18: 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?

[03:06:10] Speaker 4: Senator, I will honor all those review processes.

[03:06:13] Speaker 18: You will honor those review processes?

[03:06:15] Speaker 4: Yes, Senator.

[03:06:16] Speaker 18: If these are actions that the FBI employees, if there are actions against FBI employees that do not follow those standards process that happened 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?

[03:06:38] Speaker 4: 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.

[03:06:46] Speaker 18: Have you made any commitments to anyone about pursuing any investigations or targets if you are FBI director?

[03:06:52] Speaker 4: Only violent criminals and terrorists.

[03:06:54] Speaker 18: Have you had any conversations with anyone on the transition team about pursuing any investigations or targets?

[03:07:01] Speaker 4: Only following the Constitution. Again, are you certain? That I have told people on the administration? Are you certain?

[03:07:10] Speaker 18: Have you had any conversations with anyone on the transition team about pursuing any investigations or targets?

[03:07:17] Speaker 4: Senator, to the best of my recollection, I've only said I will use the Constitution.

[03:07:21] Speaker 18: Have you had any, have you discussed specific investigations or targets you would pursue as FBI director with the President United States?

[03:07:30] Speaker 4: Senator, to the best of my recollection, no.

[03:07:33] Speaker 18: Are you certain? To the best of my recollection, no. 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? Yes, sir. And when you were before the grand jury, you pled the fifth on the basis of self-incrimination, correct?

[03:07:58] Speaker 4: I pled, I utilized my constitutional rights during that process with the advice and consent of counsel and appeared before that grand jury.

[03:08:06] Speaker 18: I will take that as a yes, and you are familiar, I imagine, with section 6002 of Title 18. Off the top of my head, Senator, not... Well, section 6002 is the immunity statute. 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, 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?

[03:08:51] Speaker 4: Involved in which? The Mar-a-Lago classified documents case? Yes. No, I testified through compulsion by court order.

[03:08:57] Speaker 18: You received immunity for providing information that was self-incriminating. Do you remember the name of the prosecutor who questioned you? There were multiple, Senator, I do not. Was it one of the people, were any of them people that were fired this past week? I have no idea, Senator. Are you certain? You're under oath.

[03:09:16] Speaker 4: 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 prosecutor.

[03:09:22] Speaker 18: What was the information you provided that you received immunity for?

[03:09:26] Speaker 4: 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.

[03:09:35] Speaker 18: Well, I find it troubling that you do not know the law here, and let me tell you what the law is. Rule 6 governs grand jury proceedings. Under Rule 6e, 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?

[03:10:09] Speaker 4: In this we are agreement, Senator. Get my grand jury testimony. I want it made public. I asked the Department of Justice to make it public, and they refused to do so.

[03:10:18] Speaker 18: There is no legal bound against you telling us right now what you what you testified to.

[03:10:26] Speaker 4: When I asked for my transcript to be released...

[03:10:29] Speaker 18: Sir, did you or did you not commit a crime? Senator, I did not commit a crime. Then why won't you tell us what you testified to?

[03:10:37] Speaker 4: Because it occurred over the course of three weeks. I don't have the ability to recall everything I testified to, but I'm asking you to put my transcript down.

[03:10:44] Speaker 18: Did you testify to witnessing the President of the United States declassifying documents?

[03:10:49] Speaker 4: Senator, what I testified to is best captured by that transcript.

[03:10:53] Speaker 18: 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?

[03:11:18] Speaker 4: I testified accordingly and under oath and I encourage you to get that transcript.

[03:11:23] Speaker 18: 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?

[03:11:37] Speaker 4: Senator, the grand jury testimony is available to you. I encourage you to make it public.

[03:11:42] Speaker 18: As you likely know, the second volume of Jack Smith's report about the classified document case is not public yet. To fulfill our constitutional duty of advice and consent, 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? Yes. Okay, 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 the 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's involve these names, Erica Knight, Tom Ferguson.

[03:13:07] Speaker 1: You stated your question, would you answer or don't you want to? Okay. We can move on. Senator Blackburn.

[03:13:15] Speaker 20: 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?

[03:13:45] Speaker 4: I don't know, Senator. You'd have to ask them.

[03:13:48] Speaker 20: Well, I 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're 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're 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?

[03:15:32] Speaker 4: 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 counter man missing children and exploited children going fewer.

[03:15:49] Speaker 20: 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?

[03:16:19] Speaker 4: Yes Senator, that is.

[03:16:21] Speaker 20: 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?

[03:17:11] Speaker 4: Many of my family are, yes Senator.

[03:17:13] Speaker 20: How many of your family, sir?

[03:17:18] Speaker 4: Well I guess the Indians have a different definition of family. We got a really big one and they're all family.

[03:17:24] Speaker 20: We all love big families. So we got a lot. 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.

[03:17:39] Speaker 4: That is of the utmost importance.

[03:17:41] Speaker 20: Thank you. I want to go to the Nunez memo. You were the principal author of the Nunez memo. Is that accurate?

[03:17:49] Speaker 4: Yes, me and staff.

[03:17:50] Speaker 20: Thank you and that did really so much to focus the light on the Russia gate 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 four 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 Nunez memo?

[03:19:03] Speaker 4: Our team and yes absolutely.

[03:19:05] Speaker 20: And the Nunez memo was accurate in its description of the details, correct?

[03:19:11] Speaker 4: As confirmed by the Inspector General, the special counsel because the Nunez memo only contained sworn information received pursuant to transcribed interviews and production of government materials including FBI 302s and DOJ memorandum.

[03:19:25] Speaker 20: So the Nunez memo is accurate?

[03:19:27] Speaker 4: Yes ma'am.

[03:19:28] Speaker 20: Thank you for that. In your new role as director, how will you work to root out two tiers of justice at the FBI?

[03:19:36] Speaker 4: 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.

[03:19:57] Speaker 20: 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?

[03:20:07] Speaker 4: 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 five years through our country including our cyber infrastructure 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.

[03:20:35] Speaker 20: Thank you. I look forward to a yes vote on your confirmation. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[03:20:41] Speaker 2: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, since the senator from Tennessee raised my name, I'd like to respond.

[03:20:49] Speaker 1: Please go ahead.

[03:20:51] Speaker 2: 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 9th, 2023 Supreme Court ethics subpoenas markup, Senator Blackburn had never raised Epstein's flight logs with me publicly or privately. During the November 30th, 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.

[03:22:41] Speaker 20: 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.

[03:23:42] Speaker 2: Fifteen seconds. Yeah, yes. The senator from Tennessee knows what the two-hour rule is. The two-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. Senator Padilla.

[03:24:00] Speaker 21: 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, etc. 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?

[03:25:14] Speaker 4: 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'm confirmed. FBI employees represent the front line 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.

[03:25:35] Speaker 21: 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?

[03:25:44] Speaker 4: Not, yes, not having a law enforcement there.

[03:25:46] Speaker 21: Thank you. Seven 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, yet the reports are that the hiring freezes is damaging. I want to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a New York Times article outlining the questions and concerns I just stated. 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 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?

[03:27:07] Speaker 4: I greatly appreciate this. This is one that hits home squarely because my guys, my friends, were on that operation. They were in that Hilo. They were in that B-22. And there's never a time in my career that it would jeopardize the safety of the men and women in uniform. And if you ask the National Security Advisor, the President of the United States, who's with me on that day, who has gone on the record publicly, as has General Tony Teda, 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.

[03:27:50] Speaker 21: So your friends were 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 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?

[03:28:56] Speaker 4: 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 some thousand violations. So I think we need it and I think we need to work with Congress to reform it.

[03:29:14] Speaker 21: 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.

[03:29:33] Speaker 4: 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.

[03:29:40] Speaker 21: 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 know 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?

[03:30:26] Speaker 4: Senator, my foundation has used funds to help police officers across the country.

[03:30:31] Speaker 21: It's a yes or no.

[03:30:32] Speaker 4: I don't know if those officers families applied for a grant. That's how we distribute at a charity.

[03:30:38] Speaker 21: That tells me a lot about your care and prioritization of the police officers you claim to support.

[03:30:45] Speaker 4: You've given away over a half a million dollars to law enforcement and active duty militaries.

[03:30:50] Speaker 21: I mean you were able to articulate to me examples of the families of January 6 insurrectionists. Because the insurrectionists are in jail, you're supporting the 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.

[03:31:12] Speaker 1: Your time's up.

[03:31:15] Speaker 21: Okay, I'll save it for the second round. Thank you, Mr.

[03:31:17] Speaker 1: Chair. Before I call on Senator Schmidt, 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 for me. That's not a quote for 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, cash 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 our citizens. So by unanimous consent, I will put this letter in the record. Any disagreement? I hear none. Senator Schmidt.

[03:32:29] Speaker 22: 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 versus 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. Yul Roth, who was the main guy at Twitter at the time, signed an affidavit saying they were talking specifically about the laptop. It 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?

[03:34:03] Speaker 4: I did, Senator.

[03:34:04] Speaker 22: When agencies like the FBI and the CIA prioritize politics over truth, the nation suffers. Did you say that?

[03:34:11] Speaker 4: I sure did, Senator.

[03:34:13] Speaker 22: Accountability isn't optional. Those who violate the public trust must face real consequences, regardless of their rank or title. Did you say that?

[03:34:22] Speaker 4: I did, Senator.

[03:34:23] Speaker 22: Okay. There's a lot more in there. And I know that that Senator Tillis has got the game of bingo. I'd like to play another game. Would you rather?

[03:34:35] Speaker 4: Let's have at it, sir.

[03:34:37] Speaker 22: 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?

[03:34:52] Speaker 4: Absolutely. Investigate and prioritize the safety of our children and any actual and real domestic terrorists, as I have prosecuted in my past in the Obama Justice Department.

[03:35:01] Speaker 22: Would you rather the FBI be weaponized by investigating presidential candidates, political opponents, spying on and wiretapping candidates' advisers, or should the FBI get its back, get back to its core mission, and get politics out of the FBI?

[03:35:19] Speaker 4: 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.

[03:35:31] Speaker 22: 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?

[03:35:46] Speaker 4: A hundred thousand deaths due to fentanyl and drug overdoses in one year. I'd rather the FBI focus on that and save our children.

[03:35:54] Speaker 22: 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?

[03:36:08] Speaker 4: I'm so glad you brought that up, Senator. This body passed a law to protect our justice 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.

[03:36:20] Speaker 22: 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?

[03:36:35] Speaker 4: No censorship, let's focus on investigating interstate crimes.

[03:36:39] Speaker 22: 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?

[03:36:57] Speaker 4: Let's let our men and women in law enforcement kick down the doors of terrorists and narco traffickers and pedophiles and put those people in prison where they belong.

[03:37:05] Speaker 22: 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, it 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 four 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 think 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 gonna get confirmed, and you're gonna 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 got a big job. You got a big, big job. But I have all the faith in the world in you, that you're gonna restore that trust. Because you believe in the rule of law, you have an incredible personal story, you're gonna get confirmed, and I wish you all the best, and you have my vote.

[03:40:02] Speaker 23: Thank you, Senator.

[03:40:03] Speaker 4: Appreciate that.

[03:40:04] Speaker 23: 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, 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 6th. 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?

[03:41:11] Speaker 4: Senator, as I've said before, that President Biden was certified and sworn in, and he was a president. I don't know how else to say it.

[03:41:18] Speaker 23: Well, the other way to say it is he won. He was the president. 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. Donald Trump has never acknowledged that he lost in 2020, and he invited people to come to the Capitol on January 6th 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?

[03:42:23] Speaker 4: Sir, my opinions on the 2020 election have been expressed in this hearing, and he's entitled to whatever opinions he wants.

[03:42:31] Speaker 23: Do you agree with him that the election was stolen in 2020?

[03:42:35] Speaker 4: Senator, millions of Americans have expressed concern going back to multiple elections over election integrity.

[03:42:40] Speaker 23: You know, you're so skillful. You understand what I'm asking you. Can you say the words, Joe Biden won the 2020 election?

[03:42:53] Speaker 4: Joe Biden was the President of the United States.

[03:42:56] Speaker 23: You understand 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.

[03:43:11] Speaker 4: 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.

[03:43:18] Speaker 23: 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 the Vice President Harris was a criminal and should be prosecuted. Is that a prosecution you would initiate?

[03:43:44] Speaker 4: 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.

[03:43:54] Speaker 23: 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?

[03:44:04] Speaker 4: Senator, everybody's entitled to their opinion. The only thing that matters at the FBI is whether the law is followed.

[03:44:09] Speaker 23: Okay, I know everybody's entitled to their opinion. I'm asking you your opinion. Should General Milley be tried for treason?

[03:44:18] Speaker 4: Vice President Harris, Kamala Harris, or General Milley, or anyone otherwise, will not be subjected to an FBI investigation. That doesn't mean the rigorous standards of the Constitution.

[03:44:27] Speaker 23: 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 Ross Oldbrook. Maybe you're not. Ross Oldbrook started the Silk Road, the Dark Web. He made millions of dollars selling drugs, providing a vehicle by which people could get things that were going to kill him, 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?

[03:45:25] Speaker 4: My opinion on presidential pardons is that one, I was not consulted.

[03:45:29] Speaker 23: No, no. I'm asking you your opinion about Mr. Oldbrook. Should the person who created that Dark Web drug dealer situation, should he be pardoned, in your opinion?

[03:45:43] Speaker 4: 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 in law enforcement, whether it's President Biden or Trump.

[03:45:52] Speaker 23: I'm with you on that, okay? I'm with the chairman over here, but I'm just trying to find out on Oldbrook. You're gonna, you know, again, bottom line here, you're gonna have a tough job and you're gonna have a tough boss because he gets it in his mind he wants to do something, nothing gets in the way. And there's gonna become 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.

[03:46:31] Speaker 4: 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.

[03:46:42] Speaker 23: 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.

[03:46:52] Speaker 1: Okay.

[03:46:53] Speaker 23: 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.

[03:47:33] Speaker 24: 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 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 on all members of the Judiciary Committee, for that we say thank you. You said you were going to have the backs, as you always have, of law enforcement. You reminded us about being embedded in SIL Team 6. 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 backwards. 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 Lake and Riley Act and the 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 Lake and Riley's mother yesterday, as she talked about her heartbreaking loss that should have never happened, Rachel Marin's family there, Sarah Root's family there, Jocelyn Nungberry'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.

[03:51:00] Speaker 4: 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. 100,000 drug overdoses, 100,000 rapes, 17,000 homicides. That's only what 70% 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, a third of them, 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 gonna 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% 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' 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 I will just save 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.

[03:53:08] Speaker 24: 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 is a redstone. That's exactly right. Redstone Arsenal is a beacon of what, you know, 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?

[03:54:18] Speaker 4: 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.

[03:54:51] Speaker 24: Excellent. Thank you so much.

[03:54:53] Speaker 25: Senator Schiff. Mr. Patel, early in this hearing, Senator Durbin asked you about the January 6th 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?

[03:55:14] Speaker 4: Senator, what I said was I didn't do the recording.

[03:55:18] Speaker 25: 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?

[03:55:54] Speaker 4: That's why it says we, as you highlighted.

[03:55:56] Speaker 25: Yeah, and you're part of the we, right? When you say we, that includes you, doesn't it, Mr. Patel? Not in every instance. Well, that's new. So when you said we, you didn't really mean you. Is that your testimony?

[03:56:12] Speaker 4: Not unless you have a new definition for the word we.

[03:56:14] Speaker 25: 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?

[03:56:35] Speaker 4: Me, personally, no.

[03:56:36] Speaker 25: After you said that we digitized and recorded it and all that, did you take it to a studio and digitize and record it?

[03:56:44] Speaker 4: Me, personally, no.

[03:56:45] Speaker 25: Okay, so you are lying to Steve Bannon and his audience, is that what you're saying?

[03:56:49] Speaker 4: No, I was using the proverbial we, appropriately, as you've identified.

[03:56:52] Speaker 25: The royal we, oh, I see. And so you certainly promoted the hell out of it, though, didn't you?

[03:57:01] Speaker 4: I don't know what that means, but I promoted the heck out of raising money for families in need.

[03:57:07] Speaker 25: With promotions on social media and saying you were gonna get this to number one on the billboards, right, Mr. Patel? I think it did. Yes, it did. Yes, it did. Isn't that great? People violently attacked police, have a number one song, thanks to you, Mr. Patel. That's something to be really proud of. Now, you've claimed, you've claimed, Mr. Patel, you didn't know about any of these people in the choir, is that right?

[03:57:32] Speaker 4: I did not know about the violent offenders and I did not participate in any of the violence in and around January 6th.

[03:57:39] Speaker 25: 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 assaulted law enforcement, what due diligence did you do?

[03:57:51] Speaker 4: Senator, I didn't record it myself.

[03:57:53] Speaker 25: So you did no due diligence before you promoted this song by these violent felons, is that what you're telling us?

[03:58:00] Speaker 4: Senator, I did not record that myself.

[03:58:03] Speaker 25: 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.

[03:58:30] Speaker 4: I'm looking at you, you're talking to me.

[03:58:32] Speaker 25: 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.

[03:58:54] Speaker 4: That's an abject lie and you know it. I've never, never, ever accepted violence against law enforcement. I've worked with these men and women as you know my entire life. You glorified it in song, Mr.

[03:59:09] Speaker 25: Patel. And I did not make a single dime out of it. How about you ask them if I have their backs and let's see about that answer. Let me ask you this, Mr. Patel. Let me ask you this. If an FBI director promoted a song of people who spray pepper spray in the face of an FBI agent, would you say they were fit to be director?

[03:59:29] Speaker 4: Mr. Schiff?

[03:59:30] Speaker 25: Yes or no? Would they be fit to be director?

[03:59:32] Speaker 4: I am fit to be the director of the FBI.

[03:59:34] Speaker 25: 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?

[03:59:44] Speaker 4: Mr. Schiff, I am fit to be FBI director based on my 16 years in government service.

[03:59:48] Speaker 25: And yet you did all these things, Mr. Patel. You can say, oh, I support law enforcement. I decry violence against law enforcement. You can 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? In what proceeding? To the public ever, did you tell anyone that Donald Trump declassified all the documents at Mar-a-Lago?

[04:00:23] Speaker 4: From publicly available information, President Trump issued a declassification order on a variety of materials.

[04:00:28] Speaker 25: No, 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?

[04:00:39] Speaker 4: From the best of my recollection, I said President Trump issued a declassification order to a large number of documents.

[04:00:45] Speaker 25: And were you present when he declassified all the Mar-a-Lago documents?

[04:00:49] Speaker 4: Senator, I'm not saying he declassified all the Mar-a-Lago documents. I said 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 to the American people.

[04:01:02] Speaker 25: Mr. Patel, before a president or anyone declassified documents, wouldn't you want to know whether making the 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?

[04:01:22] Speaker 4: It was the responsible thing for us to do.

[04:01:24] Speaker 25: That's why we declassified the Nunes memo. 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? I don't know that he didn't. Do you? 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, 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 two, 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 two of special counsel's report?

[04:02:23] Speaker 4: I support following the law and providing whatever information the law requires.

[04:02:27] Speaker 25: You said to the Wall Street Journal that you support transparency. Here's your chance, Mr. Patel. You support release of that to this committee. Yes or no?

[04:02:37] Speaker 1: Your 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 like 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.

[04:03:10] Speaker 3: 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 seven 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 Welsh is actually 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. Y'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 details 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 a 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 set 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 have been saying the people who were mostly peaceful protesters 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 a 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, 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 of 2024, we had four or five of our members agree to walk the plank to make sure that the end—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 things. Mike Lee's got a lot of—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 try and do an offhanded hit on people that, on a bipartisan basis, reauthorized 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. Let's just be balanced. You know, really, you've had colleagues—we've had colleagues on the other side of the aisle called President Trump, an illegitimate president. Now, the witness has acknowledged that President Biden's election was certified. If you want to use a specific word, what are we, in high school? I mean, come on. So I do have to tell you, though, Cash, I've hit bingo a couple of times. And I have a feeling, by the time we get to the third round, we will again.

[04:09:26] Speaker 4: Hope you put a lot of money on it, Senator.

[04:09:29] Speaker 3: You know what? You know what I put a lot of—I won't call it money, but capital on? It's 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 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 it, 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 pardons of 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, 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. I'll be back for a second round. Thank you, Senator. Senator Moody.

[04:11:08] Speaker 26: 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? 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 four 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, Shawn Reyes. I'm sorry, Alan Wilson. I didn't say your name. South Carolina AG and Louisiana AG, Liz Merrill. They joined me. Thank you for being here. They joined me in signing on to 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 entering 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 and 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?

[04:13:38] Speaker 4: Senator, not only do you have my commitment, if you may, for the first time ever, the National Sheriffs Association has endorsed the nominee to be the director of the FBI. 3,100 sheriff's deputies across the country have endorsed me for one reason, I think, primarily, because I'm committed to local level law enforcement, state jurisdiction. Washington, D.C., 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 the ones keeping our community safe just as much as anyone here.

[04:14:17] Speaker 26: 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 two 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 for 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 six-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 some law that they said prevented us from moving forward with our own investigation?

[04:16:47] Speaker 4: Senator, off the top of my head, 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 is complementary, and it should have been done in that instance.

[04:17:02] Speaker 26: Do I have your commitment? Now, mind you, I'd like to enter into 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?

[04:17:41] Speaker 4: Absolutely, Senator.

[04:17:42] Speaker 26: 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 am 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.

[04:18:17] Speaker 4: Thank you, Senator.

[04:18:18] Speaker 1: Is there any objection among the committee for her request to insert things in the record? I hear none, so ordered. Now we start our second round, three 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 four 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.

[04:19:36] Speaker 4: You have that commitment, Senator, if confirmed.

[04:19:43] Speaker 1: 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?

[04:20:08] Speaker 4: 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.

[04:20:49] Speaker 1: You spent 10 years in public defending. What's the biggest lesson you took away from that experience?

[04:20:59] Speaker 4: 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, 100 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.

[04:21:40] Speaker 1: 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.

[04:22:02] Speaker 4: I have.

[04:22:05] Speaker 1: What you've mentioned, my time's up, I guess. 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 of the FBI. Simple.

[04:22:30] Speaker 4: Make sure we don't have 100,000 rapes in this country next year. Make sure we don't have 100,000 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.

[04:22:48] Speaker 1: Senator.

[04:22:52] Speaker 2: 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 and 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, 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?

[04:23:25] Speaker 4: Yes, Senator.

[04:23:26] Speaker 2: 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 6th, the policemen and their families? Are you going to help people who were arrested for assaulting them? 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?

[04:24:03] Speaker 4: Excuse me, sir. I can appreciate the difference, but I think my track record shows which side I fall on.

[04:24:08] Speaker 2: 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.

[04:24:19] Speaker 4: No, we actually gave all the money. Nobody made any money. All proceeds went through a 501c3.

[04:24:24] Speaker 2: I'm talking about the creation of the musical work.

[04:24:26] Speaker 4: Yes, all the money, all the profits went to nonviolent offenders' families and other groups in need.

[04:24:34] Speaker 2: 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?

[04:24:47] Speaker 4: I did not have any participation in the recording.

[04:24:50] Speaker 2: Well, it's going to be difficult to understand how you can disperse 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 6th. Why did you say that?

[04:25:10] Speaker 4: 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 6th, and that Biden, Inspector General, confirmed just that.

[04:25:25] Speaker 2: So it's Cassius Corner, and the date is December the—I can't read the writing, it's so small here—it looks like it's December 2002. And what did the FBI know before January 6th? And you said, what was the FBI doing planning January 6th for a year? Want to send this down to the desk so he gets a chance to look at it? Why did you say that? Did you think the FBI was really planning January 6th for a year?

[04:25:52] Speaker 4: Actually, Senator, I'm grateful that you raised this point. You should watch the entirety of the episode. This is the problem with taking snippets. 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.

[04:26:12] Speaker 2: What resources were utilized a year in advance of planning January 6th?

[04:26:15] Speaker 4: 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.

[04:26:25] Speaker 2: 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 6th.

[04:26:34] Speaker 4: And there is no evidence. There's a huge distinction between undercover employees and sources. I know because I ran them, and anybody in law enforcement knows that too.

[04:26:43] Speaker 2: Do you think the FBI was planning January 6th for months ahead of time?

[04:26:47] Speaker 4: Once again, that's not what I said.

[04:26:49] Speaker 2: Well, read your own words. Maybe that's a good starting point. I just say one last thing. We've talked a lot about fentanyl, stopping it from coming to the United States. If you were successful in becoming head of the FBI, I wish you good luck and do everything I can to help you. But don't forget there's traffic moving in the opposite direction. What are we sending back to Mexico and the cartels? Money and guns. Money and guns. Please look at the whole equation. We've got to deal with all aspects of it. That's a great point. I will, Senator.

[04:27:17] Speaker 10: I yield. Senator Lee.

[04:27:21] Speaker 12: 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 four years. Let me read you what they said. They said they're concerned that, quote, the law enforcement policies of the last four years have undermined the rule of law and burdened our nation with great risk and vulnerability. Close quote. What do you make of that statement? What are they referring to there?

[04:28:13] Speaker 4: Could you just repeat the end of that?

[04:28:15] Speaker 12: They said they're concerned that, quote, the law enforcement policies of the last four years have undermined the rule of law and burdened our nation with great risk and vulnerability.

[04:28:25] Speaker 4: 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.

[04:28:44] Speaker 12: So that's why they like you. That's why they support you. That's why they've chosen to come in, 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, 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 local law enforcement officials to bring that back.

[04:29:38] Speaker 4: 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 and, excuse me, from law enforcement. And that's what the sheriffs are talking about. That's what cops are talking about.

[04:30:31] Speaker 12: 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.

[04:30:43] Speaker 1: Senator Whitehouse.

[04:30:44] Speaker 7: Mr. Patel, you supposedly know something about grand juries. I just went to the DOJ website to get language. I'm quoting it. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6E 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?

[04:31:24] Speaker 4: Senator, I authorize this committee to get whatever is appropriate and lawful, as I've said before.

[04:31:30] Speaker 7: Specifically including the transcript of your grand jury testimony, which you have the authority to authorize us to obtain.

[04:31:38] Speaker 4: Well, I don't know if I singularly have that authority. I don't think that's how grand jury testimony works.

[04:31:42] Speaker 7: The Department of Justice... You do because you are the witness. You can do that.

[04:31:46] Speaker 4: There's also a court order on that case, sir.

[04:31:48] Speaker 7: 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?

[04:32:01] Speaker 4: I authorize this committee to lawfully obtain any records that they are appropriately allowed to get.

[04:32:07] Speaker 7: 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?

[04:32:17] Speaker 4: Senator, I'm not an expert on this constitutional standard. And so I can't commit to something that I don't know. It's not expert.

[04:32:22] Speaker 7: It's like super simple. Grand jury rule 6E doesn't apply to witnesses. This is not hard. You are a witness. That is a simple fact. I'm just relying on my time.

[04:32:30] Speaker 4: You can authorize us to see it. 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...

[04:32:39] Speaker 7: Grand jury witnesses are allowed to speak about what they were told 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?

[04:32:51] Speaker 4: Senator, I can't go into court orders granted by the D.C. District Chief Judge.

[04:32:57] Speaker 7: If they apply to you, of course you can.

[04:33:00] Speaker 4: You want me to violate a court order?

[04:33:03] Speaker 7: 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?

[04:33:08] Speaker 4: I'm telling you that if you find the applicable court order and it permits this request...

[04:33:14] Speaker 7: I don't need a court order if you give authorization.

[04:33:18] Speaker 4: I'm not the one that has the authority to do that.

[04:33:20] Speaker 7: 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? All records, Will. No destruction of documents to please Trump?

[04:33:42] Speaker 4: No, I think he put forth a memo saying all records must be preserved.

[04:33:47] Speaker 1: Good. Are you done? Time's up. Senator Kennedy.

[04:33:57] Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, did you listen to what my colleague Senator Welsh had to say about politicizing the FBI and the Department of Justice?

[04:34:14] Speaker 4: I did, sir.

[04:34:16] Speaker 11: 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 Sussman.

[04:35:47] Speaker 1: And so did Michael Sussman.

[04:35:48] Speaker 11: 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, the 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 was killed. 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.

[04:37:25] Speaker 13: 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 NAIG. How many days has President Trump been in office?

[04:38:19] Speaker 4: Sorry, Senator. Approximately 10.

[04:38:21] Speaker 13: 10. Is it possible to give 30 days notice in 10 days?

[04:38:25] Speaker 4: I'm not great at math, but it doesn't sound like it.

[04:38:27] Speaker 13: It doesn't. You're an attorney. You're an attorney. Did Trump violate, facially violate this law in terms of the timing of the firing of the inspectors general?

[04:38:34] Speaker 4: Senator, I'm not going to entertain a hypothetical on legal violations, but I will look into all possible legal violations referred.

[04:38:41] Speaker 13: 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?

[04:39:25] Speaker 4: No.

[04:39:26] Speaker 13: 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?

[04:39:37] Speaker 4: Addressing those in order, Senator, with IGs, as you know, I believe, and I've 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 counsel's 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.

[04:40:05] Speaker 13: 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.

[04:40:20] Speaker 1: Before I recognize Cruz, Senator, has some unanimous consent requests.

[04:40:27] Speaker 2: Mr. Chairman, I have two letters here. I'd ask 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.

[04:40:46] Speaker 1: Without objection, so ordered. Senator Cruz.

[04:40:51] Speaker 16: 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 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 four years, as a result of the open borders that we've had, over 12 million illegal immigrants 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 11th, 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?

[04:42:49] Speaker 4: It's as high as I've ever seen it, Senator.

[04:42:52] Speaker 16: And describe to this committee what the FBI should be doing to prevent future terrorist attacks.

[04:43:02] Speaker 4: 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.

[04:43:27] Speaker 16: 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?

[04:43:47] Speaker 4: 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.

[04:43:58] Speaker 16: And it will be your priority to stop them. Is that correct? Absolutely. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal.

[04:44:05] Speaker 15: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to ask you some easy questions. I take it from what you have said to a couple of my colleagues that while we may disagree on the meaning of Rule 6e as to getting the transcript, you would not object to this committee seeking access to that transcript.

[04:44:25] Speaker 1: No.

[04:44:26] Speaker 15: And you're aware that Rule 6e 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.

[04:44:44] Speaker 4: Senator, I'm here to testify to this committee about everything I'm allowed to.

[04:44:48] Speaker 15: And you're allowed under Rule 6e 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.

[04:45:06] Speaker 4: Senator, I will consult with counsel and provide the appropriate answer.

[04:45:10] Speaker 15: 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.

[04:45:52] Speaker 4: That was days of testimony years ago. I don't have the ability to recollect that.

[04:45:55] Speaker 15: Well, you can refresh your recollection with access 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?

[04:46:15] Speaker 4: Would I object to it? That's the providence for the Attorney General to make. It's not something I would participate in.

[04:46:21] Speaker 15: But you know of his work. It's been bipartisan, very thorough, competent, objective, impartial. He has been critical in Republican and Democratic administrations. Won't you object to his firing?

[04:46:35] Speaker 4: 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.

[04:46:40] Speaker 15: 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.

[04:46:58] Speaker 4: If the Attorney General asks me, yes, for my opinion.

[04:47:02] Speaker 15: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[04:47:06] Speaker 24: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brattel, 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 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 TDAC, 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 that the training that is going on there, 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 three 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 D.C. 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.

[04:48:51] Speaker 4: 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 exists to the tune of billions. 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.

[04:49:13] Speaker 24: Absolutely. I love it. I'd 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 those things, that you will take a good look at training and make sure that that's not the first thing that gets cut.

[04:50:12] Speaker 4: Absolutely. High standards and merit. That's what we'll do. Thank you so much.

[04:50:19] Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we talked about, Mr. Patel, truth 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 Pack's podcast. He asked you the Capitol police in that fake January 6 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?

[04:51:11] Speaker 4: That's a general statement and a mischaracterization of what I said. I encourage you to read the rest of the interviews. This is why snippets of information are often misleading and detrimental to this committee's advice and consent process.

[04:51:22] Speaker 9: Well, if you consent, I would love to have five hours of questions and then I could read the whole transcript. You've got two minutes. 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, unquote. 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?

[04:51:57] Speaker 4: 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.

[04:52:22] Speaker 9: OK. Last, so 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?

[04:52:43] Speaker 4: I don't have that entire quote, but that's what it says.

[04:52:46] Speaker 9: It was in a, you were angry because of 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.

[04:53:10] Speaker 4: I don't have that full quote in front of me to respond.

[04:53:13] Speaker 9: Thank you.

[04:53:17] Speaker 26: 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 I should move to Florida and at the very least, maybe a Flora-Bama FBI HQ. 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 wide open borders. That'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 four 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 four 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.

[04:54:25] Speaker 4: Absolutely.

[04:54:26] Speaker 26: So there was a CEO that was put in charge in the last four years who said that 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?

[04:54:53] Speaker 4: 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.

[04:55:10] Speaker 26: 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 ensure 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?

[04:55:51] Speaker 4: You do, Senator.

[04:55:52] Speaker 26: 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 in 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.

[04:56:15] Speaker 4: Thank you, Senator. I will.

[04:56:20] Speaker 17: 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 two 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 two 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 Grither 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. 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.

[04:59:17] Speaker 22: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 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?

[04:59:29] Speaker 4: That's been my understanding.

[04:59:30] Speaker 22: Yeah, and I think you've stated that the best reflection and the most accurate version of your testimony is the transcript in the grand jury testimony that you're fine to be released, but the court has to go do that, right? Yes, sir. Yeah, okay. And it lasted like three or four days. Is that what you're saying? Yes. I also want to, Senator Durbin talked about what your priority or your priorities will be. And I think your testimony has been that it will be adherence to the Constitution and the people of the United States of America, right? You take that very seriously.

[05:00:04] Speaker 4: That's it. That's the only thing that matters.

[05:00:06] Speaker 22: Could you talk about maybe some other priorities? We talked initially in my first round about getting the FBI back to its core mission, which is to fight crime and not sort of try to do the things that it's been doing the last four years. Talk about how you might bring that together.

[05:00:27] Speaker 4: So, Senator, I appreciate the questions. Something I wanted to address maybe six 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. And we have not prioritized, in my opinion, as a law enforcement agency, the collective power we can rein 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 be confirmed, to set up regional drug interdiction task force where our local sheriff's 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, this to me. I do not know your jurisdictions as well as you all ever will. That's what makes this so critically important and 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 Americans' national security.

[05:02:12] Speaker 22: And maybe, just maybe, where you have a third of the personnel for the FBI here in Washington, D.C., 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.

[05:02:27] Speaker 4: I think so, sir.

[05:02:28] Speaker 22: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[05:02:32] Speaker 18: Mr. Patel, do you know any of these five individuals? Erica Knight, Tom Ferguson, Greg Menser, Steve Reese, or Carlos Fernandez? Yes, Senator.

[05:02:47] Speaker 4: Who are they? People I've worked with in the past at some point.

[05:02:52] Speaker 18: I'm told that those are the people that will be additional political appointees to help run the FBI. Is that correct?

[05:02:59] Speaker 4: That's news to me, Senator.

[05:03:01] Speaker 18: 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? I don't. I'm told that they are affiliated with SpaceX and Elon Musk and that he had influence and 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?

[05:03:44] Speaker 4: I witnessed the President of the United States issue a declassification order for documents.

[05:03:49] Speaker 18: 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?

[05:04:04] Speaker 4: 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.

[05:04:11] Speaker 18: You claim publicly that you saw President Trump declassify documents. Is that correct?

[05:04:18] Speaker 4: That's correct, Senator.

[05:04:20] Speaker 18: 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?

[05:04:30] Speaker 4: No, what I said, Senator, was I heard and witnessed the President issue a declassification order for a number of documents. For the documents specifically that were at Mar-a-Lago? 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.

[05:04:50] Speaker 18: So this is the issue. The question is, will you lie for the President of the United States? Would you lie for Donald Trump? No. I hear you saying no, but the best way to clarify that would be to testify, as you are 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 towards. 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.

[05:06:18] Speaker 20: 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. 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.

[05:07:27] Speaker 4: You absolutely will, Senator.

[05:07:28] Speaker 20: 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 swifty 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 back the recruiting and the training in order to accomplish that mission.

[05:08:26] Speaker 4: 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.

[05:08:40] Speaker 20: So that will be a priority for you.

[05:08:42] Speaker 4: 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.

[05:09:10] Speaker 20: And that is a day one item for you.

[05:09:14] Speaker 4: Yes, ma'am.

[05:09:15] Speaker 20: Thank you.

[05:09:19] Speaker 21: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Patel, do you believe that background checks for firearm purchases are constitutional?

[05:09:31] Speaker 4: I don't know the in-depths of it, but I think that's what the Supreme Court has said, Senator.

[05:09:36] Speaker 21: So the word would be Y-E-S. Yes, can you say yes, are background checks constitutional?

[05:09:43] Speaker 4: I can say whatever the Constitution of the Supreme Court ruled is the rule of the land.

[05:09:47] Speaker 21: And what is the rule, the law of the land at the moment?

[05:09:50] Speaker 4: I'm not an expert on state-by-state background checks.

[05:09:52] Speaker 21: You're going to be universal background checks. Well, that's different. 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?

[05:10:03] Speaker 4: Universal background checks are different. That's not what you say.

[05:10:06] Speaker 21: Can I ask a separate question? Do you believe civilian ownership of machine guns is protected by the Second Amendment?

[05:10:13] Speaker 4: Whatever the court's rule in regards to the Second Amendment is what is protected by the Second Amendment.

[05:10:18] Speaker 21: Yet 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 I can observe 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 6th 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 a quote, Bent the knee, was 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 Bent the knee quotes were not my words. I was quoting Mr. Patel as he appeared on the Sean Ryan show on September 2nd of 2024. And I'm happy to share a link, Senator Tillis, to clarify. Thank you, Mr.

[05:13:28] Speaker 1: Chair.

[05:13:30] Speaker 23: Thank you very much. I don't want to belabor this, but it certainly would be of benefit to us if that grand jury testimony could be released. But my understanding is the Senator Whitehouse testimony 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 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 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'll 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. He 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 who 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 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?

[05:16:13] Speaker 4: No, the FBI must be independent.

[05:16:15] Speaker 23: 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.

[05:16:41] Speaker 25: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[05:16:42] Speaker 1: Mr.

[05:16:43] Speaker 25: 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? If that's what I said. So you asked the Justice Department to make your grand jury testimony public?

[05:17:14] Speaker 4: At the time of my appearance in the grand jury.

[05:17:16] Speaker 25: And who did you ask to do that? The lawyers. Mr. Chairman, since the witnesses 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 witnesses 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.

[05:17:45] Speaker 1: I won't tell you. Let me say something. I'm not going to take this out of your time. Not directly answering your question, but I think it'd be significant what Richard Grinnell put on X. I testified in front of Jack Smith's grand jury. 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.

[05:18:31] Speaker 25: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd welcome the chance to have Mr. Grinnell 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 Mr. Durbin would be, Senator Durbin would be willing to make that request to the court.

[05:18:50] Speaker 1: I wouldn't answer your question without talking, get all the background I need, considering the conversation between you two. I couldn't make that judgment now.

[05:19:00] Speaker 25: 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 the 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 inspector generals 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? 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. Let's not be one of them.

[05:21:37] Speaker 1: There are times out. Before Senator Tillis ends this, I want to put in the record a letter from the parents of Kayla Mueller. Mr. Patel met them through his role in the successful operation to track and kill ISIS leader al-Baghdadi. I'm quoting, the terrorist group ISIS kidnapped our daughter Kayla on August 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. Senator Tillis.

[05:22:47] Speaker 3: 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's probably going to disappoint the audience to hear what I'm about to say. Now, 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 a week, within the last week, to talk about areas that we can work together on. Senator Padilla and I actually work 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 Knicks 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've got to 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 confirms an FBI director that writes 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.

[05:25:58] Speaker 4: Thank you, Senator.

[05:26:00] Speaker 1: Before I close the meeting, you have anything you want to say? I've got something here that's directly related when 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 Thiebaud to open the elector case against Trump. And that included a grand jury investigation. Jack Smith's lawfare efforts and his 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. Everyone's information, 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.

[05:28:39] Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[05:28:47] Speaker 1: Thank you. you you