‘Spoiled Child Incompetent Lackey’: Booker’s BRUTAL Takedown Of Kash Patel Goes VIRAL

He's like an 18-year-old kid who wants to join a fraternity that he could never be a member of, doing keg stands and chugging with friends. He's an embarrassment to the agency and wouldn't qualify even to be an FBI agent, sir. In an interview with Breitbart News on May 2022, you stated that you were present when President Trump declassified documents at Mar-a-Lago. You said that Trump had, quote, declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government. You told the Wall Street Journal in August of 2022 that you witnessed Trump issue verbal declassification orders, particularly related to the FBI's investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russia near the end of his administration. Do you stand by that statement today? Yes. Have you ever made a false statement before a grand jury? Nope. Director, on May 12th of this year, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, you testified And I'm quoting you, I can tell you unequivocally, this FBI is targeting and investigating no journalists, end quote. But in March of this year, after Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times reported that you used a full-time FBI SWAT detail to protect and drive your girlfriend, your agents interviewed your girlfriend about Ms. Williamson's reporting. Is that true? Why are you talking about my loved ones who have been threatened based on... I did not ask you. It's a yes or no question. You asked me a question and I'm going to answer it. I'm going to take your failure to answer as an affirmation. Your agents ran Elizabeth Williamson's name through federal databases to gather information about her, yes or no? You can say whatever lies you want. We're not going to participate. Lies? Is it a lie? Are you saying that that is not a fact? Stop falsely attacking me and my loved ones. We have seen multiple people threaten our lives, convicted in federal court, based on this line of attack. So I'm not going to participate in it. Mr. Chairman, I'm asking yes or no questions about activities of the FBI that, as a matter of oversight, I have a right to do. I'm not going to. Normally, I would say, but this seems to be a personal thing to him and the extent to which... It is interesting that he is using resources from the FBI in a way that he's not willing to be transparent and open about. His agents recommended moving forward to determine whether a New York Times reporter violated federal stalking law. The Department of Justice, though, ended it. They said he could no longer do this because there was no legal basis. And it looked... Like retaliation against this particular reporter, the fact that he will not discuss it, the fact that he won't be transparent and accountable to me is a further indication of him using FBI resources for his own personal benefit. Now, he continues to attack the press. And earlier, when it comes to the New York Times, on April 22nd, his bureau gave a written statement to the New York Times. They said that investigators are concerned about aggressive techniques and crossing lines. He again goes on public where he's willing to discuss things on Fox News. He said to Sean Hannity, no, no, no, there's no investigation of reporters going on. He seems comfortable discussing things on Twitter and with Fox News that he's not willing to discuss here. His bureau investigators were concerned a reporter crossed lines. And then he said there was absolutely no investigation. One of those two occasions, he is lying. Now, let the record reflect that the director is declining to even discuss this. The record has your bureau's written statement. We have Hannity's public denial, where you are clearly willing to talk about these matters. We have your May 12th testimony. None of these line up. Somewhere you're lying. The message that every reporter in America is getting right now. We have an FBI director that is attacking the most vaunted of our amendments, which is our first one, freedom of the press. If you write about this director, this FBI will run your name through government databases. That's not law enforcement. That is this man before us using a police agency to settle personal grievances about a story that embarrassed him. And this is not a one-time thing, Mr. Patel. You do it often. In July, you did it again. And this time, a federal judge had to stop you. In July, the New York Times reported on security problems with an airplane from Qatar given to the president. Within two days, you personally went to the White House and spent the better part of a day directing subpoenas against the reporters who wrote it. Not a leaker, you went after the reporters. Grand jury subpoenas were served on three New York Times reporters. Armed FBI agents went to their homes. You subpoenaed their phone company for their call records. You subpoenaed the records of one reporter's mother. You get upset when somebody writes a fair story about your girlfriend, but you're out there using the FBI to go after a reporter's mom. You subpoenaed the records of two reporters' spouses. Not their girlfriends, but their spouses. This is a fact pattern. Director, the president was secretly shuttled from the Qatari jet via an airport catering truck to a smaller Air Force jet on July 8th. The story ran the next day on July 9th. You demanded those reporters' phone records, but you didn't just go back to this period. As an act of further intimidation of reporters, you went back six months. All the way to January 1st, before there was even a story. Six months before there could have even been a leak. There was no crime in January. The judge admonished you for this. The judge saw this for what it was, an abuse of power. On July 23rd, a federal judge in Manhattan took this up. He told your government's lawyer he would throw out every one of those subpoenas. He raised rather to sanction your lawyers for false statements and sworn applications. Your own lawyers conceded that there was inadvertent errors, end quote, in their filings. Director, you've talked a lot about your making history. Has any federal judge in the entire history of the FBI ever asked whether to sanction the government for what it swore in a subpoena application? Do you know that? Yes, I do. They have. But we weren't targeting journalists. No, sir, they haven't. You are making history. You are abusing this office. If you're going to continue to mischaracterize our work, I'm not going to participate in it. I'm not characterizing it. I am stating a fact pattern. Go ahead. Nothing I've said is not supported in the facts of your agency. You're unwilling to offer transparency here and talk about things that deal with your girlfriend, but you should talk about your personal behavior. This isn't a personal vendetta. Senators on both sides of the aisle should have to know, why are you using FBI resources in ways that benefit yourself and your family and your girlfriend, but you won't even answer questions. And yet, like a thug, you're using your agency to go after reporters. In a chill to one of the most sacrosanct ideals of the United States of America. They can pass you all the notes they want, but the truth is clear. Right now, you are stonewalling this committee for asking simple questions of accountability on how you're using government resources to go after reporters. And yes, there is a chill out there. Reporters like you like, like Hannity. You give them all the information they want. You answer their questions. Reporters you don't like, you subpoena their mother's records. Mr. Director, I have one last pattern of questions. You announced in your life, excuse me, in your term, you've announced investigations against a plot on the UFC on the White House lawn. You've publicly discussed charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center. You discussed the 764 network investigation policy. You are very chattery when it comes to investigations when they are not talked about before this committee. But here, here, you stonewall us. So let me put this together. A reporter wrote about you, and your bureau ran her name through records and began an investigation. Reporters wrote about the president, and your bureau went to their homes and subpoenaed their mothers. And the one investigation you promised Congress, The one that President said himself should happen is the one I want to talk about. You said that when the President claimed that there was a forgery in the Epstein files, that the card he sent, you promised this committee and others that you would investigate that forgery, that a forged document in a child's sex traffickers' birthday book, you said you would investigate. Has there been any investigation? Any witnesses, interviews, any names on what you promised us you would do when it comes to that birthday book? Before you answer that question, I said at the opening I'd give you some time to respond as long as you didn't talk over people. And I think you've been very reserved in that. So answer his question and then I'll give you time before I call on Senator Graham. In that testimony before the House, where you said clearly you would launch an investigation. I got your question. He's allowing me to answer it. Yeah, answer it, please. I am. You going to stop? You done? Do you want some time to speak about it? Sure, if you give it to me. Go ahead. Sure. The Obama administration subpoenaed countless reporters, did 1,200 interviews of reporters in an investigation into reporters. This administration focuses on the leakers of classified information that endangered the lives of elected officials and American citizens. We are not targeting reporters at any point in time. We are trying to find out who in the government... Mr. Chairman, this is still my time. He can answer at the end of my time, but this is still my time. No, he's not. Your time's up. No, sir, my time is not up. You allowed Mike Lee to go two and a half minutes over, but you had a Democratic senator you're going to cut off? At a previous meeting, I let you go three hearings over. As you have other people. I have one more line of questioning to give. So, Mr., then I'll make my concluding remark, and you can do whatever you want, sir. My concluding remark is we don't have an FBI director. We have a lackey here who is using government. And, frankly, he's not even a good lackey. He's an incompetent lackey. He's like an 18-year-old kid who wants to join a fraternity that he could never be a member of, doing keg stands and chugging with friends. He's an embarrassment to the agency and wouldn't qualify even to be an FBI agent, sir. He won't answer questions for a committee. He insults Democrats here and you don't step in. He has a little book by his side that he literally is using to try to intimidate people in the same way he intimidates reporters. He is a disgrace, sir. And the fact that we are not asking him, in fact, demanding him to answer the most best basic oversight questions is a further testimony to what is bad is not just that we have a rogue FBI agent intimidating reporters. What's bad is that we have Republicans in the Senate that are enabling him. To go without any objective oversight or transparency or accountability. Why do you, why do you, why do you, why do you figure you're something special? Now we've had, I'm not special. My time has now, Why don't Republicans go over? sir, you are not being balanced in your way. My time has just now reached what Mike Lee did. And we as a committee have done what you've done before, which is ask him to answer basic questions. He won't even do it in writing. This is a mockery and a sham. We have a rogue agent intimidating the press, violating people's First Amendment rights, and doing everything the president has. You don't show much respect for your chairman. You've gone on now. I have utter respect for you. In fact, I have love for you. And this is why I know. This is not who you are. You are not holding this witness in an objective way to answer the questions that are given to him by Democratic senators, yet he insults them time and time again. What he did to Senator Walsh should make this whole committee stand up and walk out and sanction this man for speaking to one of my colleagues the way he spoke to them. Even Senator Whitehouse, who was then sitting in, tried to control this witness, who makes everything personal. I have a right to ask questions about how he's spending money on his girlfriend. And yet he stonewalls me, but will run on Fox News and talk about any and all these issues. This is ridiculous. This is a sham. And what's bad is not the person sitting there who's a mockery to the office he holds. What is bad is the people that are enabling him to do so. You understand, Mr. Director, why during the Kavanaugh hearings... I let people talk and talk because it takes longer to shut them up than it does to let them talk. Now you go ahead and say what you wanted to say. I don't have much to say. This guy called me a thug. It's kind of ironic. He's running for president of the United States. He just got his 22nd ad campaign. Next. Senator Graham. I think Senator Graham's next. Were you done? I'm done. Somebody behind me is yelling. Yeah, brother, I will repeat what you said. You're getting thrown out, but they can't throw me out. I'm going to hold this man accountable for as long as he's in this job until he gets fired, which he probably will because he's incompetent at his job and continues to do things that merit his removal. Yes, shame on you, sir. Director Patel, were you done? By the way, violent crime arrests by the FBI in New Jersey are up 75% on top of the historic results we've already delivered for the American people. Yeah, thanks to the state police and local police officers. Irrespective of the lies that he continues to tell. Nothing I have said here is a lie. You said your time's up. Are you done or not? No, are you done or not, sir? You want to go run out to the media and talk on the microphone? If you want to answer my questions, go to the next person. Go ahead. This is ridiculous. What a mockery you are. You are the biggest mockery in the United States Senate. You're sitting next to Schiff. Yeah, well, 8 million people in New Jersey don't think so. At least I didn't get my job the way you got your job. Are you going to interfere with Senator Graham asking her questions too? I certainly will not. Too as well? I certainly will not. Are you done now? Are you ready to shut up? I am done, sir. Subscribe to One India and never miss an update. Download the OneIndia app now.