After Kash Patel’s nomination hearing to lead the FBI, Senate Judiciary Committee members had a chance to ask him additional questions in writing. Patel’s responses to those questions are now in. They do not inspire confidence that this is someone who should be director of the FBI.
Quick review: Who is Kash Patel?
Patel is a right-wing activist who regularly echoed Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. In 2023, Patel made clear that if he were appointed to a position in a future Trump administration, he would use it to harass journalists who accurately reported that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. He published an enemies list in his 2023 book Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy. He has associated with far-right figures like Stew Peters, who called for executing Anthony Fauci. (People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch dissected Patel’s less-than-convincing efforts to distance himself from Peters at the confirmation hearing.)
He is so woefully unqualified to lead the FBI that in Trump’s first term, then-Attorney General William Barr said that making Patel deputy FBI director would happen only “over my dead body.”
“Out of context”
Time and again, Democratic senators cited things Patel has said publicly and asked him to explain what he meant, or whether that was still his belief. But instead of using this as an opportunity to reassure the American people, he repeatedly said his quotes were taken out of context. Of course, if that were true, he could still have explained how the quotes don’t reflect his actual beliefs and his actual plans. But he didn’t.
For instance, Sen. Peter Welch cited something Patel said about QAnon:
Welch: In a 2022 interview, you stated, “I agree with a lot of what that movement says.” The movement you were referring to is the QAnon movement. Please describe what parts of the QAnon movement you agree with.
Patel: This language is taken out of context and does not accurately represent my prior statements or positions regarding QAnon, including that it omits that I am not familiar with the reported tenets of QAnon, I have repeatedly disagreed with much of what QAnon reportedly advocates for, and I do not support or promote QAnon.
Out of context? Really? Okay, so in what context does “I agree with a lot of what that movement says” not mean “I agree with a lot of what that movement says”? And why did he refuse to explain what parts he was referring to that he agrees with? Is there something he doesn’t want us to know?
Or take Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s question about another of Patel’s past statements.
Whitehouse: On November 4, 2022, you wrote that the FBI “brazenly rigged the 2020 election.” Yes or no: Did you write this statement?
Patel: This language is taken out of context and does not accurately or fully represent my prior statements or positions on these issues. These comments involved, among other things, an ongoing public discussion about concerns regarding the FBI’s handling of investigations that might influence public perceptions during the 2020 election.
This would have been a perfect opportunity for Patel to repudiate the untruth that the FBI rigged the 2020 election. But he didn’t. And that’s meaningful. When Trump’s enablers in the government use obfuscation and misdirection like this to justify going after those who don’t put their loyalty to Donald Trump over all else, no one should be surprised.
Reposting doesn’t mean agreement (wink, wink)
Patel was asked about items by others that he has chosen to repost on social media. For instance, Sen. Whitehouse asked him about items he reposted calling for then-Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff to be prosecuted. Patel’s constant rejoinder was that reposting an individual's perspective on a specific issue does not constitute his endorsement.
It’s certainly believable that a person would repost things they disagree with in an effort to foster debate. But that doesn’t appear to be what happened here.
How do we know? Because Sen. Dick Durbin gave Patel a chance to demonstrate just that:
Durbin: On your Truth Social account, do you share posts or articles with which you disagree? If so, please provide examples of instances where you shared Truth Social posts or news articles containing content with which you disagreed.
What a great chance for a nominee to show that he is acting in good faith. Since he says reposting doesn’t equal endorsement, this was the perfect opportunity to show that’s the case. But Patel chose not to provide any examples in response to this question. Instead, here is how he responded:
Patel: While I acknowledge a diverse range of perspectives in political discourse, reposting an individual’s perspective on a specific issue does not constitute my endorsement of how their views or other positions may be interpreted.
What are we to make of this? It doesn’t exactly strengthen the argument that we don’t need to worry about handing the FBI over to someone who reports things like calls to prosecute Schiff and Cheney.
Threats aren’t so bad if you make them on TV?
Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked what Patel meant when he said he was going to “come after” Trump's enemies in the media, “whether it’s criminally or civilly.” Patel's response:
I made those comments in a television interview. I did not make them in a court of law or before the Committee. As I stated in my hearing, while I believe private citizens have the right to pursue defamation cases against the media, there is no role for the FBI to pursue defamation cases on behalf of such individuals.
Gee, thanks for nothing. It would have been nice to see Patel vow not to abuse the FBI to illegally wiretap journalists, or to gin up bogus criminal cases against media figures or companies that criticize Trump. That’s the kind of abuse people are worried about. It’s telling that he chose not to address it in response to this question. And are we supposed to feel better because he chose to issue his threat on television? Does that make it less of a threat because he wasn’t under oath when he made it?
What’s next? And what can you do?
Committee Democrats have unanimously called for a second hearing to ask Patel more questions. This is in response to the administration’s recent efforts to remove or reassign career civil servants at the FBI, Patel’s misleading testimony at the hearing, and efforts to learn more about his testimony in the former special counsel’s classified documents case against Trump.
Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley has refused. He is still planning for the committee to vote on Patel’s nomination next week, on February 13. After that, the full Senate will vote.
So call your senators. Urge them to support a second hearing for Patel.