Senator Booker Exposes Kash Patel With His Own Grand Jury Record — As New DOJ Files Surface

[0:00] Booker set the grand jury record on the table, not a summary, not a characterization. [0:06] The actual sealed record, now unsealed, now a public document, now sitting between them. [0:13] He opened it to a marked page. He read one line. [0:17] Then he looked at Patel, Mr. Director, this is your testimony from a grand jury proceeding. [0:24] In 2021, before you became FBI director and what you said in this room, [0:30] he touched the page, directly contradicts what you told this committee six months ago. [0:37] Patel looked at the page. He looked at Booker. He looked at his attorney. He looked back at the page. [0:44] And then something happened that a senior federal official, in 12 years of watching these hearings, [0:50] told a reporter afterward he had never seen before. [0:53] If you are new to The Hill Report, subscribe right now. [0:56] Because the contradiction Booker placed on that table between Patel's grand jury record and his congressional testimony [1:03] is now in the permanent congressional record. [1:05] And a contradiction between what you say under oath to a grand jury and what you say under oath to Congress [1:12] is not a discrepancy. [1:15] It has a different name. [1:17] Senate Judiciary Committee. [1:20] Tuesday morning, 10.33 a.m. Eastern, [1:23] the hearing had been scheduled as oversight of DOJ case management and FBI leadership accountability, [1:30] the kind of scheduled agenda that, on its face, signals a morning of institutional language [1:35] and carefully managed answers. [1:38] What transformed it happened in the two weeks before the hearing when Booker's office received [1:42] two separate items on the same day through two completely unrelated channels. [1:47] The first was a set of newly released DOJ internal files produced in response to a FOIA request that had been pending for 19 months, [1:55] covering a period of FBI operational decision-making that had never been publicly documented in any prior proceeding. [2:01] The second was a federal court order issued as part of an entirely unrelated civil proceeding [2:07] that unsealed a portion of a grand jury transcript from 2021. [2:12] A transcript that, once Booker's office reviewed it line by line, [2:16] contained statements from a named witness that bore directly on the same period [2:19] and the same operational decisions covered by the newly released DOJ files. [2:24] The named witness was Kash Patel. [2:26] The statements he made under oath to the grand jury in 2021 were not consistent with the statements he made under oath to this committee six months ago. [2:36] Booker had both full transcripts. [2:38] He had the DOJ files. [2:40] And he had a 17-page comparison his office had prepared over 10 days, [2:45] matching specific statements from each proceeding against each other with precise citations to page and line. [2:52] Booker arrived with two folders and the comparison document set down in deliberate order. [2:56] He was the seventh senator to question Patel that morning. [3:01] He sat down without any preamble or setup. [3:04] He opened the first folder directly. [3:07] Mr. Director, I have your grand jury testimony from 2021, [3:12] recently unsealed as part of a federal court order in a civil proceeding. [3:16] He set the full transcript on the table. [3:19] I also have your testimony before this committee from six months ago. [3:23] He set the committee transcript beside it. [3:25] And I have a 17-page document in my office prepared over 10 days, [3:29] comparing specific statements you made in both proceedings, [3:32] under oath, about the same set of events and decisions. [3:36] He opened the comparison to the first flagged entry. [3:40] I want to start with page 4 of the grand jury transcript and page 11 of your committee testimony. [3:45] He read from the grand jury transcript first, slowly, clearly. [3:49] Then he read the corresponding committee testimony passage. [3:54] He set both transcripts down. [3:57] He looked at Patel. [3:59] Those are your words, miss. [4:00] Director. [4:02] Both sets of them. [4:04] Under oath. [4:06] About the same event. [4:08] And they are not the same account. [4:12] Patel looked at his lead attorney. [4:14] A long exchange, longer than Booker's preamble had taken. [4:19] Then, Patel, senator, grand jury testimony, [4:22] often reflects the information available [4:24] and the specific questions asked at a given moment in time. [4:28] And testimony before this committee reflects a fuller, more complete picture [4:31] developed over time with additional information available. [4:36] Booker looked at him. [4:37] A fuller picture. [4:39] He nodded. [4:40] Unhurried. [4:40] He turned to the second flagged entry in the comparison. [4:44] This is page 9 of the grand jury transcript [4:46] and page 7 of your committee testimony. [4:49] He read both. [4:51] He set them down. [4:52] He looked at Patel. [4:53] The grand jury testimony describes a specific operational decision [4:58] you were involved in. [5:00] The committee testimony says you were not involved in that decision [5:03] and had no awareness of it. [5:06] He paused. [5:08] That is not a fuller picture, miss. [5:09] Director. [5:10] That is a different answer to the same question. [5:13] In two different sworn proceedings. [5:16] He looked at him steadily. [5:18] Which answer is true? [5:21] The room had gone still with the specific, dense quiet [5:23] that enters a hearing chamber [5:25] when a contradiction between two separate sworn statements [5:27] has been placed in front of the witness [5:29] who made both statements by the witness's own words. [5:32] Patel's lead attorney was writing rapidly. [5:37] Patel's second attorney had stopped writing entirely [5:39] and was watching Booker without taking any notes. [5:43] Patel straightened in his chair. [5:44] Senator. [5:46] I want to be careful in how I characterize differences [5:48] between two separate proceedings [5:50] that had different evidentiary scopes, [5:52] different questioning frameworks, [5:54] and different available information bases, [5:56] and I don't think it serves the record or the committee [5:58] to make direct equivalence between. [6:01] Booker held up the comparison document. [6:03] Page 3. [6:06] He read from it a list of 11 specific factual claims [6:09] from the grand jury transcript. [6:12] A column beside each one [6:13] showing the corresponding committee testimony. [6:17] A third column marking each one [6:19] as consistent or inconsistent. [6:22] He set it down. [6:24] 11 claims. [6:26] 5 marked inconsistent. [6:29] He looked at Patel. [6:31] Not a scope difference. [6:33] Not a question framing difference. [6:34] 5 specific factual assertions. [6:37] Under oath. [6:37] That differ between the two proceedings. [6:41] He looked at him. [6:43] Your staff prepared you for this hearing. [6:45] Did they brief you on the inconsistencies [6:47] this committee had identified? [6:50] The Hill report. [6:51] Stop here. [6:53] Because what Booker just placed on that table [6:55] is not a political argument about interpretation. [6:58] It is a side-by-side comparison [6:59] of sworn statements from two different proceedings. [7:03] Both under oath. [7:04] Both in federal legal contexts. [7:06] One before a grand jury. [7:08] And one before this committee. [7:09] Five of 11 specific factual claims [7:13] are inconsistent between them. [7:16] That is the documentary record. [7:18] Subscribe to the Hill report right now [7:20] and hit the bell. [7:21] Because Booker's next question [7:23] pulls in the newly released DOJ files. [7:25] And the DOJ files add a third sworn context. [7:30] Booker opened the second folder. [7:32] He pulled out a document. [7:34] This is from the DOJ files released 11 days ago [7:37] in response to a 19-month FOIA request. [7:41] He opened it to the flagged section. [7:43] This is an internal DOJ communication from 2021. [7:48] Contemporaneous with the period covered [7:49] by both sets of testimony. [7:52] He read from it. [7:53] The communication describes, [7:55] in the author's own words, [7:56] the decision-making process [7:58] that both your grand jury testimony [7:59] and your committee testimony address. [8:02] He set it down beside both transcripts. [8:05] Three documents now in a row. [8:08] He looked at Patel. [8:09] The DOJ internal file, [8:11] written at the time, [8:12] describes the process one way. [8:14] Your grand jury testimony, [8:17] given two months after this document was written, [8:19] describes it a second way. [8:22] Your committee testimony, [8:23] given four years later, [8:25] describes it a third way. [8:27] He paused. [8:29] Three sworn or official accounts of the same events. [8:33] None of them fully consistent with the other two. [8:36] He looked at Patel. [8:38] Mr. Director, [8:40] which one is accurate? [8:42] Patel did not answer for 14 seconds. [8:46] Both attorneys were leaning in simultaneously. [8:48] The longest consultation of the hearing [8:50] by a significant margin. [8:53] The chamber had gone to a specific, [8:55] dense quality of silence. [8:57] The silence of a room where a sequence [8:59] has just been completed [9:00] using documents that leave no interpretive gap [9:02] between them and everyone present [9:04] is absorbing what the completion means. [9:06] Then Patel said, [9:08] Senator, [9:08] I want to address each of these documents [9:10] specifically and carefully [9:12] and with the precision they deserve. [9:15] But I am not in a position to do so fully [9:17] in this open setting [9:18] without risking imprecision [9:20] that could affect the accuracy of the record. [9:22] And I would request the opportunity [9:23] to respond to each specific item in writing. [9:27] Booker looked at him. [9:29] He looked at the three documents in a row on the table. [9:32] He looked at the committee. [9:33] He looked at Patel, [9:35] the grand jury, [9:37] this committee, [9:39] the DOJ file. [9:41] He said it quietly. [9:42] That is the third time in this hearing [9:45] that accuracy of the record [9:46] has been cited [9:47] as a reason not to address [9:48] a specific document. [9:51] He paused. [9:52] Mr. Chairman, [9:54] I move to enter [9:55] the grand jury transcript excerpt, [9:57] the committee testimony transcript, [9:59] the 17-page comparison, [10:01] and the DOJ internal communication [10:03] into the congressional record. [10:05] I move that the committee [10:06] refer the specific inconsistencies [10:08] identified in the comparison [10:10] to the Department of Justice [10:11] for review of whether any testimony [10:13] before this committee [10:14] constitutes a false statement [10:16] under federal law. [10:17] And I move that the committee [10:18] formally request [10:19] the FBI Inspector General [10:21] review the complete record [10:22] of statements made by the director [10:24] in both proceedings [10:25] for consistency [10:26] with his obligations [10:27] under 18 U.S.C. section 1001. [10:32] All three motions [10:33] were seconded immediately [10:34] by members [10:35] from both sides [10:35] of the committee. [10:37] All three passed unanimously [10:39] without a recorded objection. [10:41] Booker looked at Patel [10:42] one final time. [10:44] He did not lean forward. [10:45] He did not raise his voice. [10:48] Mr. Director, [10:49] grand jury testimony [10:50] is under oath. [10:52] Committee testimony [10:53] is under oath. [10:56] He touched the comparison document [10:57] with one hand. [10:58] Deliberately, [10:59] five of 11 specific [11:00] factual claims [11:01] are marked inconsistent [11:02] between those two [11:03] sworn proceedings. [11:06] That document is now [11:07] in the permanent [11:08] congressional record. [11:09] He stood. [11:11] The rest is not mine [11:12] to decide. [11:14] I yield back. [11:15] Mr. Chairman, [11:17] Patel left the hearing [11:18] without speaking to the press [11:20] waiting near the exit. [11:22] The FBI press office [11:23] did not issue any statement [11:25] before the end of the day. [11:28] The following morning, [11:29] a brief release stated [11:30] that the director [11:30] stands by all testimony [11:32] provided under oath [11:33] in any proceeding. [11:35] Language that, [11:36] as several legal observers [11:37] noted publicly [11:38] within hours, [11:39] does not actually resolve [11:40] a factual contradiction [11:41] between two sworn statements [11:43] in two separate proceedings. [11:45] It simply asserts [11:46] that both are simultaneously true, [11:49] which is precisely [11:49] what the 17-page comparison [11:51] says they are not. [11:54] But the grand jury excerpt, [11:56] the committee transcript, [11:57] the 17-page comparison, [11:59] the DOJ internal communication, [12:01] and the three referrals [12:02] are now permanently part [12:03] of the Senate Judiciary [12:04] Committee record. [12:06] Five inconsistencies [12:07] documented with page [12:09] and line citations. [12:11] Three official contexts [12:12] for the same events. [12:14] One director [12:14] who requested to respond [12:15] in writing [12:16] rather than address [12:17] a single specific inconsistency [12:18] in open session. [12:21] The record will be waiting. [12:22] Subscribe to The Hill Report [12:23] right now [12:24] and share this video [12:25] with everyone you know [12:26] immediately. [12:28] Tomorrow, [12:29] we release all four documents [12:30] in full. [12:32] The unsealed grand jury excerpt [12:33] with key passages highlighted, [12:36] the committee testimony [12:36] with the corresponding passages [12:38] highlighted, [12:39] the complete 17-page [12:41] comparison document [12:42] with all 11 claims [12:43] marked consistent [12:44] or inconsistent, [12:46] and the DOJ internal communication [12:48] from 2021 [12:49] providing the third [12:49] official context. [12:52] Booker placed [12:52] two sworn transcripts [12:54] side-by-side [12:55] and a 17-page comparison [12:56] between them. [12:58] Five of 11 claims [12:59] don't match [13:00] between the proceedings. [13:02] The DOJ files [13:03] add a third account [13:04] that is consistent [13:05] with neither, [13:06] and the FBI director [13:07] asked to respond [13:08] in writing [13:09] rather than address [13:10] a single specific [13:11] inconsistency [13:12] in open session. [13:14] Share this video. [13:16] The record is public, [13:18] and the comparison [13:19] is in it.