Kash Patel's Problems And DOJ's, Too Joyce Vance Feb 14 Do. Not. Confirm. Except that this Senate probably will. Thursday morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance Kash Patel’s nomination to become the next director of the FBI. The vote was 12-10, with Democrats opposed. Patel could get a full floor vote as early as next week and take charge of the FBI. We talked about Patel shortly after his nomination in this piece. He lacks the experience, judgment, and commitment necessary to helm the FBI. He has not demonstrated the essential courage the job requires: the ability to stand up for what’s right. This afternoon, some other DOJ employees showed us what that kind of courage looks like. The acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, a member of the Federalist Society who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, resigned rather than dismiss her office’s case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Upon learning that the case was being reassigned to them, so did the Chief of the Public Integrity Section (PIN), a unit inside of DOJ’s Criminal Division in Washington, D.C., and the senior career official in the Criminal Division. I’ve been advised since that all of the deputy chiefs but one at PIN have resigned as well. The reason the fourth deputy hasn’t resigned. We discussed the details of the Adams indictment here if you need a refresher. DOJ explained the case this way when they announced the indictment: “Mayor Adams abused his position as this City’s highest elected official, and before that as Brooklyn Borough President, to take bribes and solicit illegal campaign contributions.” In doing so, Adams handed over the ability to influence him to a variety of people who did him favors, including Turkish officials. That’s ironic in light of what we’re seeing now with Trump’s DOJ dismissing the charges against Adams, but without prejudice, so he could be indicted again if he falls out of favor with Trump. The case against Adams was properly indicted. He had the same ability all criminal defendants have to challenge it. Sassoon and her colleagues rightfully refused to dismiss it. Based on what we’ve learned during his confirmation process, we would not expect to see Kash Patel exhibit that kind of integrity. It’s not just his published list of enemies—quite an anomaly for a director of the FBI—although he claimed “it’s not an enemies list” at his confirmation hearing. Patel was held in such low regard by intelligence community officials that in 2021, Trump’s CIA Director, Gina Haspel, threatened to quit when reports reached her that Trump was considering Patel for a role in the intelligence agency. Trump’s AG, Bill Barr, felt the same way, opposing Patel’s appointment to be deputy director of the FBI and writing in his book that it would happen over his dead body. Here are just some of the issues with Patel: While under oath at his confirmation hearing, Patel disavowed any knowledge of a plan to take revenge on FBI agents involved in Trump/January 6 prosecutions. There is solid evidence he wasn’t being truthful, laid out by Just Security’s Ryan Goodman, who put the transcript of Patel’s testimony side by side with whistleblower testimony. Here’s the transcript: Here’s the whistleblower testimony Senator Richard Durbin confirmed he had received information from “multiple sources” and meeting notes indicating that Kash Patel has secretly helped direct the FBI purge, using Stephen Miller as a cut out to deliver his directions to acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove. Durbin asked for an Inspector General investigation, saying that if the allegations were borne out, Patel may have perjured himself. Patel allegedly misled Pentagon officials in 2020 during an operation that involved Seal Team 6 entering Nigerian territory to conduct a hostage rescue. He reportedly “assured” senior officials that Nigeria’s government had been notified, when in fact, they had not been. According to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, this nearly resulted in an international debacle that could have endangered the lives of the extraction team. Patel wrote in his book that the story wasn’t true and accused Esper, Trump’s own appointee, of being a member of the deep state. Did Patel fabricate a defense for Trump in the classified documents criminal case in Florida? It had been widely reported that Patel claimed Trump could have declassified the documents he took with him from the White House to Mar-a-Lago that formed the basis for his indictment in the Southern District of Florida. Patel was reportedly called to the grand jury by Jack Smith, presumably to learn about this claim, and asserted his Fifth Amendment rights. Smith is reported to have obtained an immunity order to force Patel to testify under oath in the grand jury. What Patel said and what evidence Smith presented to obtain his indictment isn’t known, because Volume 2 of the Special Counsel’s report hasn’t been released. It seems like Senators might want to see that before they vote on Patel’s nomination. Trump used the Patel-inspired line of defense to defend himself, even though many of his officials said they were unaware of any order declassifying documents subsequently found at Mar-a-Lago. Patel has possible conflicts of interest, including one with Chinese clothing manufacturer Shein, which manufactures fast fashion and has been investigated for violating human trafficking laws. Patel says he has no intention of divesting between $1 and $5 million in stock in Elite Depot, the company that controls Shein. His financial disclosure forms say the stock was compensation for consulting services. You can read Patel’s financial disclosure forms, known as an OGE278, here. Patel noted that he could participate in matters related to the business if he received a written waiver from Trump. Yet Patel vowed to investigate and put an end to human trafficking during his confirmation hearing. Roger Sollenberger reports that “Kash Patel started two online payment companies with a veteran of offshore financial management. Late last month, they were both folded under a parent company. Patel only disclosed a relationship with one of these three corporations.” Sollenberger continues, “his disclosure omits ties to related firms; & these companies mysteriously restructured the day before he signed his ethics agreement.” The reporting raises the possibility of unethical ties at a minimum and needs to be more fully explored. This list is far from exhaustive. But any one of these issues, or any of the others I didn’t have space to include here, would be sufficient to end a nomination and deny a background clearance in any other administration. The head of the FBI has extensive powers associated with directing criminal investigations and national security investigations. Those powers shouldn’t be bestowed lightly on someone who is unfit. Patel’s confirmation will say as much about Senate Republicans, who have completely abdicated their constitutional obligation to advise and consent on a president’s nominees, as it will about the president who nominated him. History, if there is such a thing written from an accurate viewpoint, is going to offer a ringing condemnation about the people who made this possible. Kash Patel is on track to be confirmed to a ten-year term as director of the FBI, but he can’t credibly lead the organization. That seems to be the whole point. If Trump cared about the credibility of the nation’s top law enforcement agency, he would have pulled the nomination. But Patel is who he wants: not someone to lead the agency, but someone who will oversee its corruption and disintegration. Patel infamously said that if he was running the agency, on his first day in office he would clear out F.B.I. headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue and reopen in the next day as a museum. Republican Senators are apparently willing to overlook that. Donald Trump has told them to confirm Patel. The New York Times reported this morning, “Republican lawmakers have embraced the choice of Mr. Patel, arguing that the F.B.I. treated conservatives unfairly during the Biden administration.” I have nothing but respect and regard for the FBI, having worked with them for 25 years and lived through their successful prosecution of the man who killed my father-in-law. Despite my admiration, one thing I’ve never done is mistake the FBI for a left-leaning entity. The FBI has a conservative culture. It’s never had a director who was a Democrat. No matter which president was doing the appointing, they went straight to central casting for a Republican, like Barack Obama did when he appointed Jim Comey or Donald Trump when he appointed the now-discarded Chris Wray. To the extent the Bureau has a lean, it’s a conservative one. But to the point, it’s not a Republican agency or a Democratic one. It’s a law enforcement agency. The job is to pursue justice without fear or favor. And it’s clear that there is plenty to be concerned about when it comes to Kash Patel on both of those counts. We’re in this together, Joyce