Whitehouse Asked Patel About The Enemies List. Patel Said He Doesn't Have One.

[0:01] Why was the pause? You know, I was not there. Wasn't explained to you when you got there. Oh, [0:07] by the way, boss, they've had a multi and eight day pause on background investigations. You think [0:13] that would be something that would be explained to you at some point? Again, I leave it to the [0:17] men and women at the HRD division to run background investigations. I do not interfere with them. [0:22] I get that. What I don't get is whether you were told about that pause. And why would you not be [0:29] told about that pause? I don't recall that, sir. Before Kosh Patel became FBI director, [0:34] he wrote a book. The book was called Government Gangsters. In it, he named approximately 60 [0:41] people he considered threats to the republic. Career officials, former prosecutors, [0:46] intelligence professionals. He called them government gangsters. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [0:52] of Rhode Island had been keeping track of what happened to those people after Patel took office. [0:57] Seven months in, about 20 of the 60 had faced adverse actions of various kinds, [1:03] firings, forced retirements, demotions. Whitehouse did the math out loud. At that rate, [1:10] he told Patel, you have 14 months until you've hit all 60. Patel said he does not have an enemies list. [1:19] Boy, is my timing good. It is very good. Director Patel, welcome. Thank you, sir. [1:27] When you were here for your confirmation, we talked about [1:30] your so-called enemies list. It appears to me that there have been adverse actions of various kinds [1:43] taken against about 20 of the 60 people on your enemies list. You've been in office for [1:51] seven months. At that rate, you've got 14 months until you've hit all 60. Can you explain that? [1:59] Again, that is an entirely inaccurate presupposition. I do not have an enemies list. [2:04] You can continue to characterize it as you wish. The only actions we take, generally speaking, [2:10] for personnel at the FBI are ones based on merit and qualification and your ability to uphold your [2:15] constitutional duty. You fall short. You don't work there anymore. Well, there was a list. You don't like [2:21] it to be called an enemies list, and it had about 60 names, and about 20 have had adverse actions. So those [2:27] are, I think, pretty clear facts. Let me move on to your grand jury testimony, which we also talked about [2:36] when you were here. I think you indicated that you understood that a witness in the grand jury is free [2:46] to discuss afterwards whatever they told the grand jury. And you then went on to suggest, saying, [2:59] I can't go into court orders granted by the D.C. district chief judge, and you want me to violate a [3:10] court order. In those remarks, you fairly plainly suggested there was a court order of some kind [3:18] court order that somehow restricted or limited your ability to discuss your own testimony to that [3:27] grand jury. Since then, that chief judge that you mentioned, Judge Bosberg, has written, and I'm [3:37] quoting him here, Federal rule of criminal procedure 6E allows witnesses like Patel to divulge the contents [3:45] of their testimony, meaning that nothing was preventing him from doing so before the committee. Can we [3:54] confirm here today that there is no court order of any kind that limits your ability as a witness before [4:04] the grand jury to discuss your own testimony to that grand jury? We can confirm that pursuant to my [4:11] action that that grand jury testimony has been released, the transcript. Let's, um, in what forum [4:24] was it released, may I ask? Publicly. Okay. We'll check on that. Um, the FBI does background investigations. [4:34] In the case of, um, a U.S. attorney, Jeanine Pirro, it has come to light that, in a civil proceeding, [4:51] um, that Fox News executives prior to her confirmation called her, I'm quoting here, [5:02] a reckless maniac who makes, quote, insane comments and said, I don't trust her to be responsible [5:15] and noted her penchant for what they called random conspiracy theories on weird internet sites. [5:24] My question to you is, did that turn up in her background investigation? [5:33] For any background investigation, Senator, we do not discuss those publicly. And for every [5:39] background investigation, when there's adjudication, it is not made by me. It is made by the career [5:44] professionals who run the inspection division and background check system. [5:47] Do you know if that information was found? You see, we're an oversight body here. And there are [5:54] really three possibilities here. One is that the FBI background investigation didn't find that stuff. [5:59] That's worth noting because these investigations, full field background investigations are supposed [6:06] to find that stuff. That's possibility one. Possibility two is that the FBI did in fact find that [6:13] information and then did not report it to the administration or to the committee. And the third [6:23] is that you found it, you reported it to the administration, and they went ahead with her [6:30] nomination, knowing that she had been described as a reckless maniac, who made insane comments, [6:38] who wasn't trusted by colleagues to be responsible, and who had a penchant for random conspiracy theories [6:44] on weird internet sites. Are you saying that this committee does not have any authority or reason [6:50] to look into which of those things is true? [6:52] This committee can look into anything it wishes. I'm telling you that the background investigations [6:58] that are done by the HRD division are done by career individuals. They do not report the details [7:02] of those to me. They adjudicate those independently and individually. That's how it's always [7:08] been done. [7:09] What happened during the pause of FBI background investigations that was alleged in the complaint [7:18] against you and the FBI by the FBI agents who were terminated? On February 12th, Emil Bovey [7:27] directed the FBI, quote, to pause any FBI background investigations of Trump nominees until Patel [7:33] was confirmed, which happened on February 20th, is the general description of what they alleged. [7:38] Why do you know were background investigations paused? Was it so material like this could be scrubbed [7:47] out of them? And have they been resumed without that pause fully and normally after your arrival on [7:57] February 20th? [7:58] I can speak to the time period since I got there. Background investigations have been ongoing [8:03] across the board at the FBI. [8:07] Why was the pause? Do you know? [8:10] I was not there. [8:12] Wasn't explained to you when you got there? Oh, by the way, boss, they've had a multi and eight day [8:17] pause on background investigations. You think that would be something that would be explained [8:20] to you at some point? [8:22] Again, I leave it to the men and women at the HRD division to run background investigations. I do not [8:27] interfere with that. I get that. What I don't get is whether you were told about that pause. And why [8:34] would you not be told about that pause? I don't recall that, sir. [8:39] All right. The allegation also relates that part of the employee review of senior staff was whether or not [8:57] they voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Since when is who you voted for a proper question for [9:13] agents to be asked? [9:15] I don't know what allegation you're referring to, Senator. If it's from an ongoing matter in litigation, [9:22] I can't discuss that. But what I can discuss is I can only speak to the FBI's background [9:29] investigations. There are other background investigations conducted across the government. [9:34] I can only speak to just to clarify, I'm not talking about the FBI full field background [9:39] investigations. I'm talking about internal employee reviews for promotion for termination for job [9:49] actions of various kinds. And my question to you is, is it now the policy of the FBI to ask agents [10:00] who they voted for? And since when is who agents voted for a proper question for the FBI to ask? [10:11] Taking those in reverse order, it's not a proper question. And it's improper to allege that I'm [10:16] doing that. And also at the FBI specifically, under my leadership, we do not ask who you voted for. [10:23] And just one correction for the record, if I may, Senator, it's security division that runs [10:26] background investigations, not HRD. Okay, I'll accept that correction. And in the event that we [10:35] cannot locate your grand jury transcript, just expect a question for the record that will give [10:44] you the chance to either provide that transcript again, if it had been briefly provided, or to make [10:50] the statement that grand jury rule 60 allows you to the best of your recollection truthfully about [10:56] what it is that you told that grand jury. Do you understand that? That's why I wanted the transcript [11:01] released and we'll get it to you, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you, chairman. The background [11:05] investigation pause is a specific and verifiable claim. According to a complaint filed by terminated [11:12] FBI agents, a senior Justice Department official directed the FBI to pause all background [11:18] investigations of Trump nominees on February 12th, eight days before Patel was confirmed [11:24] on February 20th. The allegation is that this pause gave the administration time to review [11:30] and potentially remove unfavorable material before those investigations were finalized. Patel's answer [11:37] was that he was not there. That is technically accurate. He had not yet started the job. But White [11:42] House's follow up was the harder question. Was it not explained to you when you arrived? Was there [11:48] no moment when someone said, by the way, we paused background investigations for eight days before [11:53] you came on? Patel said he did not recall. The director of the FBI asked whether he was informed [12:00] about an eight day pause in background investigations at his own agency, said he did not recall. [12:06] There is also the question of Jeanine Perrault, the U.S. attorney who Fox News executives, [12:11] Fox News executives, had described before her confirmation as a reckless maniac who made insane [12:18] comments, who was not trusted by colleagues to be responsible, and who had a penchant for random [12:23] conspiracy theories on weird internet sites. White House laid out three possibilities. The FBI [12:29] background investigation did not find that material. The FBI found it and did not report it. Or the FBI [12:36] found it and reported it and the administration went ahead anyway. Patel declined to say which of those [12:42] three things happened. The enemy's list framing is worth returning to. Patel rejected the label, [12:48] but the underlying question, whether roughly 20 people who appeared in his book have now faced adverse [12:54] employment actions at the FBI, was never answered. He said adverse actions are based on merit and [13:00] qualification. White House said those are pretty clear facts. Neither man disputed the number. What Patel [13:07] published before he had the power to act on it is now part of the record of what happened after he [13:13] did. Subscribe and turn on notifications. The Hearing Files covers the record, not just the book. [13:19] He said he does not have an enemies list. 20 of the 60 had already been reached.