Democrat CORNERS Kash Patel! STUMPED FBI Chief Gets Urgent Note During Senate Hearing — FBI, Trump

[0:00] if you write about this director, this FBI will run your name through government databases. [0:06] That's not law enforcement. That is this man before us using a police agency to settle personal [0:14] grievances about a story that embarrassed him. Corey Booker came to this FBI oversight hearing [0:21] with a stack of questions about how Kash Patel's bureau treats reporters. Patel came ready to [0:27] fight back. What follows is one of the angriest exchanges of the year, with a note passed to the [0:32] director and a chairman trying to keep the clock. So is Booker exposing an abuse of power or putting [0:39] on a show? Let's look at what was actually said. This is the Capitol Brief. Director, in an interview [0:47] with Breitbart News on May 2022, you stated that you were present when President Trump declassified [0:53] documents at Mar-a-Lago. You said that Trump had, quote, declassified whole sets of materials [1:00] in anticipation of leaving government. You told the Wall Street Journal in August of 2022 [1:06] that you witnessed Trump issue verbal declassification orders, particularly related to the FBI's [1:12] investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russia near the end of his administration. [1:18] Do you stand by that statement today? Yes. Have you ever made a false statement before [1:24] grand jury? Nope. Director, on May 12th of this year, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, [1:33] you testified, and I'm quoting you, I can tell you unequivocally, this FBI is targeting and [1:39] investigating no journalists, end quote. But in March of this year, after Elizabeth Williamson of the New [1:48] York Times reported that you used a full-time FBI SWAT detail to protect and drive your girlfriend, [1:56] your agents interviewed your girlfriend about Mrs. William, Ms. Williamson's reporting. Is that true? [2:02] Why are you talking about my loved ones who have been threatened based on- I did not ask you, [2:06] it's a yes or no question. It's a yes or no question. You ask the question and I'm going to answer it. [2:10] I'm going to take your failure to answer as an affirmation. Your agents ran Elizabeth Williamson's [2:16] name through federal databases to gather information about her, yes or no? You can say whatever lies you want. [2:21] We're not going to participate. Lies? Is it a lie? Are you saying that that is not a fact? [2:26] Stop falsely attacking me and my loved ones. I am not- We have seen multiple people threaten our [2:33] lives convicted in federal court based on this line of attack. So I'm not going to participate in it. [2:39] Chairman, I'm asking yes or no questions about activities of the FBI- I've answered it. [2:43] That is a matter of oversight I have a right to do. Some background on Booker's opening. In 2022, [2:50] Patel said publicly that he saw Donald Trump declassify whole sets of documents before leaving [2:55] office. Later that year, he testified to the grand jury in the classified documents case [3:01] after being granted immunity. That case was dismissed in 2024. So those claims were never [3:08] tested at trial. Then Booker turns to a New York Times reporter who wrote about Patel's [3:13] security arrangements for his girlfriend. Booker says the FBI then looked into that reporter. [3:19] Patel won't discuss it and says his family has faced real threats. Both things can be true. [3:26] But a question about how agents were used is a fair oversight question. [3:31] I'm not going to- Normally I would say, but this seems to be a personal thing to him and [3:38] and the extent to which- It is interesting that he is using resources from the FBI in a way that he's [3:45] not willing to be transparent and open about. His agents recommended moving forward to determine [3:50] whether a New York Times reporter violated federal stalking law. The Department of Justice, though, [3:55] ended it. They said he could no longer do this because there was no legal basis. And it looked [4:02] like retaliation against this particular reporter. The fact that he will not discuss it, the fact that he [4:08] won't be transparent and accountable, to me is a further indication of him using FBI resources for his own [4:16] personal benefit. Now, he continues to attack the press. And earlier, when it comes to the New York Times, [4:30] on April 22nd, his borough gave a written statement to the New York Times. They said that investigations, [4:38] investigators are concerned about aggressive techniques and recourseing lines. He again goes on [4:44] public where he's willing to discuss things on Fox News. He said to Sean Hannity, no, no, no. There's no [4:50] investigation of reporters going on. He seems comfortable discussing things on Twitter and with [4:57] Fox News that he's not willing to discuss here. His bureau investigators were concerned a reporter crossed [5:03] lines. And there was no- And then he said there was no absolute- There was absolutely no investigation. [5:10] One of those two occasions, he is lying. Now, let's the record reflect that the director is declining to [5:18] even discuss this. The record has your bureau's written statement. We have Hannity's public denial, [5:25] where you are clearly willing to talk about these matters. We have your May 12th testimony. None of [5:31] these line up. Somewhere you're lying. The message that every reporter in America is getting right now [5:39] is that we have an FBI director that is attacking the most vaunted of our amendments, which is our [5:45] first one, freedom of the press. If you write about this director, this FBI will run your name through [5:52] government databases. That's not law enforcement. That is this man before us using a police agency to [6:00] settle personal grievances about a story that embarrassed him. And this is not a one-time thing, [6:07] Mr. Patel. You do it often. In July, you did it again. And this time, a federal judge had to stop you. [6:15] Here's the heart of Booker's charge. He says the bureau told the Times its investigators were worried [6:21] about a reporter's techniques, while Patel told Sean Hannity there was no investigation of reporters at [6:28] all. If both statements are accurate, they're hard to square. And Patel declined to explain the difference [6:34] here. Those specifics come from Booker. And Patel calls his account lies. What is clear is the backdrop. [6:41] In April 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi rolled back Justice Department limits on subpoenaing [6:48] reporters in leaked cases. So the guardrails are thinner than they used to be. And that's exactly [6:53] why these questions keep coming up. In July, the New York Times reported on security [7:00] problems with an airplane from Qatar given to the president. Within two days, you personally went [7:07] to the White House and spent the better part of a day directing subpoenas against the reporters who [7:13] wrote it. Not a leaker. You went after the reporters. Grand jury subpoenas were served on three New York [7:23] Times reporters. Armed FBI agents went to their homes. You subpoenaed their phone company for their call [7:32] records. You subpoenaed the records of one reporter's mother. You get upset when somebody writes a fair [7:40] story about your girlfriend, but you're out there using the FBI to go after a reporter's mom. You [7:46] support needed the records of two reporters' spouses, not their girlfriends, but their spouses. This is a fact [7:54] pattern. Director, the president was secretly shuttled from the Qatari jet via an airport catering truck [8:03] to a smaller Air Force jet on July 8th. The story ran the next day on July 9th. You demanded those [8:12] reporters' phone records, but you didn't just go back to this period as an act of further intimidation [8:19] of reporters. You went back six months all the way to January 1st before there was even a story. Six [8:27] months before there could have even been a leak. There was no crime in January. The judge admonished you for [8:34] this. The judge saw this for what it was, an abuse of power. On July 23rd, a federal judge in Manhattan [8:44] took this up. He told your government's lawyer he would throw out every one of those subpoenas. He [8:51] raised rather to sanction your lawyers for false statements and sworn applications. Your own lawyers [8:58] conceded that there was inadvertent errors, end quote, in their filings. Director, you talked a lot about [9:06] your making history. Has any federal judge in the entire history of the FBI ever asked whether to [9:15] sanction the government for what it subwore in a subpoena application? Do you know that? Yes, I do. [9:21] They have. We weren't targeting journalists. No, sir, they haven't. We were targeting the leakers of classified [9:26] information. You are abusing this office. If you're going to continue to mischaracterize our work. I'm not [9:30] characterizing it. I am stating a fact pattern. Nothing have I said is not supported in the facts [9:37] of your agency. Some context on the Qatari jet. In 2025, Qatar's royal family offered President Trump [9:45] a Boeing 747 to use as Air Force One, and the administration accepted it despite criticism from [9:52] both parties. The details of the subpoenas and of a federal judge in Manhattan threatening to throw them [9:58] out are Booker's account of the court record. He says government lawyers conceded inadvertent errors [10:05] in their filings. Patel's answer is that the FBI was chasing leakers of classified information, [10:11] not reporters. Leak investigations are legitimate, but reaching back six months before a story existed [10:19] and into a reporter's mother's records is the kind of breadth courts are built to check. [10:25] You're unwilling to offer transparency here and talk about things that deal with your girlfriend, [10:31] but you should talk about your personal behavior. This isn't a personal vendetta. Senators on both sides [10:37] of the aisle should have to know why are you using FBI resources in ways that benefit yourself and your [10:44] family and your girlfriend, but you won't even answer questions. And yet, like a thug, you're using your [10:51] agency to go after reporters in a chill to one of the most sacrosanct ideals of the United States of [11:00] America. They can pass you all the notes they want, but the truth is clear. Right now, you are stonewalling [11:07] this committee for asking simple questions of accountability on how you're using government [11:12] resources to go after reporters. And yes, there is a chill out there. Reporters like you like, like [11:20] Hannity, you give them all the information they want. You answer their questions. Reporters you don't [11:25] like, you subpoena their mother's records. Mr. Director, I have one last pattern of questions. You [11:35] announced in your life and your, excuse me, in your term, you've announced investigations against a plot [11:42] on the UFC on the White House law. You've publicly discussed charges against the Southern Poverty Law [11:51] Center. You discussed the 764 network investigation policy. You are very chattery when it comes to [11:57] investigations when they are not talked about before this committee. But here, here, you stonewall us. [12:06] So let me put this together. A reporter wrote about you and your bureau ran her name through records and [12:12] began an investigation. Reporters wrote about the president and your bureau went to their homes and [12:18] subpoenaed their mothers. And the one investigation you promised Congress, the one that president said [12:25] himself should happen, is the one I want to talk about. You said that when the president claimed that [12:33] there was a forgery in the Epstein files, that the card he sent you promised this committee and others [12:40] that you would investigate that forgery, that a forged document on a child's sex trafficker's birthday [12:47] book, you said you would investigate. Has there been any investigation, any witnesses interviewed, [12:54] any names on what you promised us you would do when it comes to that birthday book? Now, hold on, [13:01] because this question is different. In 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported that Jeffrey Epstein's [13:08] 50th birthday album included a letter bearing Donald Trump's name. The president called it fake [13:14] and sued the newspaper. House investigators later released the album. Booker says Patel promised [13:21] Congress the FBI would look into whether the letter was forged. That's a simple yes or no about a public [13:27] commitment. And notice what happens next. The chairman, Chuck Grassley, gives Patel the floor to answer. [13:35] What Patel does with it says a lot. Before you answer that question, [13:41] I said at the opening, I'd give you some time to respond if you, as long as you didn't talk over [13:49] people. And I think you've been very reserved in that. So answer his question and then I'll give you [13:56] time before I call on Senator Graham. In that testimony before the House, where you said clearly you would [14:04] launch an investigation. I got your question. He's allowing me to answer it. Yeah. Answer, [14:08] please. I am. You going to stop? You done? Do you want some, [14:13] do you want some time to speak about it? Sure. If you give it to me. Go ahead. Sure. [14:17] The Obama administration subpoenaed countless reporters, did 1,200 interviews of reporters in [14:23] an investigation into reporters. This administration focuses on the leakers of classified information [14:29] that endangered the lives of elected officials and American citizens. We are not targeting reporters at any [14:34] point in time. We are trying to find out who in the government. Mr. Chairman, this is still my time. [14:39] He can answer at the end of my time. This is still my time. No, he's not. Your time's up. No, [14:43] sir. My time is not up. You allowed Mike Lee to go two and a half minutes over, but yet a Democratic [14:50] Senator, you're going to cut off? At a previous meeting, I let you go three [14:54] hearings over. As you have other people. I have one more question line of questioning to give. No, [14:58] he's so. Mr. Then I'll make my concluding remark and you can do whatever you want, sir. My concluding [15:03] remark is we don't have an FBI director. We have a lackey here. Okay. Who's using government. And [15:08] frankly, he's not even a good lackey. He's an incompetent lackey. Okay. He's like an 18 year old [15:13] kid who wants to join a fraternity that he could never be a member of doing keg stands and chugging with [15:18] friends. He's an embarrassment to the agency and wouldn't qualify even to be an FBI agent, sir. He won't answer [15:25] questions for a committee. He insults Democrats here and you don't step in. He has a little book [15:31] by his side that he literally is using to try to intimidate people in the same way he intimidates [15:36] reporters. He is a disgrace, sir. And the fact that we are not asking him, in fact, demanding him [15:42] to answer the most best basic oversight questions is a further testimony to what is bad is not just that [15:48] we have a rogue FBI agent intimidating reporters. What's bad is that we have Republicans in the Senate [15:54] that are enabling him to go without any objective oversight or transparency or accountability? [16:01] Why do you, why do you, why do you, why do you, why do you, why do you, why do you, why do you figure [16:05] you're something special now? We've had, I'm not special. My time has now, my, sir, you are not [16:13] being balanced in your way. Let's, my time has just now reached what Mike Lee did. Let's, let's, let's, [16:18] we have a committee have done what you've done before, which is ask him to answer basic questions. [16:23] He won't even do it in writing. This is a mockery and a sham. We have a rogue agent [16:29] intimidating the press, violating people's first amendment rights and doing everything [16:34] the president has. You don't show much respect for your chairman. You've gone on now. [16:39] I have utter respect for you. In fact, I have love for you. And this is why I know this is not who you [16:45] are. You are not holding this witness in an objective way to answer the questions that are [16:49] given to him by democratic senators. Yet he insults them time and time again. What he did to Senator [16:56] Walsh should make this whole committee stand up and walk out and sanction this man for speaking to one [17:05] of my colleagues the way he spoke to them. Even Senator Whitehouse, who was then sitting in, tried to [17:10] control this witness who makes everything personal. I have a right to ask questions about how he's spending [17:17] money on his girlfriend. And yet he stonewalls me, but will run on Fox news and talk about any and all [17:24] these issues. This is ridiculous. This is a sham. And what's bad is not the person sitting there who's [17:31] a mockery to the office he holds. What bad is bad is the people that are enabling him to do so. [17:37] You understand, Mr. Director, why during the Kavanaugh hearings, I let people talk and talk because [17:47] it takes longer to shut them up than it does to let them talk. Now you go ahead and say what you [17:52] want to say. I don't have much to say. This guy called me a thug. It's kind of ironic. He's running for [17:57] president of the United States. He just got his 22nd ad campaign. Next. Senator Graham. I think [18:05] Senator Graham's acts. So did Booker corner Patel on substance? Patel didn't answer the Epstein [18:16] question and he never squared his public denials with his bureau's statements about reporters. [18:22] Those are real gaps and Congress is entitled to answers. His defense that the Obama administration [18:29] also seized reporters records is partly true. In 2013, the Justice Department secretly obtained [18:36] Associated Press phone records. But that doesn't answer Booker's questions about this bureau. [18:42] On style, Booker's insults, calling the director a lackey and a thug, gave Patel an easy way out. [18:50] And Grassley's point about the clock is fair. Here's where I land. Press freedom is too important to be [18:57] lost in a fight about manners. Now I want to hear from you. Did Booker go too far or did Patel dodge? [19:04] Tell me in the comments and give me your reasoning, not just your team. And subscribe to The Capital Brief [19:11] for more congressional hearings and commentary that looks beyond the headlines.