Kash Patel destroyed Hirono, Schiff and Booker

[Moonglow]

True. The extent to which your cult perverted the criminal justice system for political purposes is unbelievable. We will never allow it to happen again.

Trump is a criminal because he did criminal things....Don't try to deny the Truth. You cannot stop Trump's greed and lust for power.

 

[Marener]

what FBI agent?

Chris Meyer.

 

[Godboy]

Yeah, it's always locked, and no one ever goes in there.

It literally required an extremely high level FBI agent to open that door. Comey made sure that "no one ever goes in there".

Comey couldnt destroy the evidence without going through a well documented process that would have raised concerns of corruption, so his only option was to stick it in a dark corner and hope no one found it until years later when it was too late to go after anyone for it.

 

[Rawley]

Trump is a criminal because he did criminal things....Don't try to deny the Truth. You cannot stop Trump's greed and lust for power.

SO you will apologize and admit you were wrong when the convictions get reversed.

 

[struth]

Three senior FBI officials, including former acting director Brian Driscoll, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in mid-September 2025 against FBI Director Kash Patel and the Trump administration. They allege they were illegally fired as part of a "campaign of retribution" targeting agents deemed insufficiently loyal to President Trump.

Cool story, most people that get canned don't think they deserved it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The Kash and Shifty back and forth was epic.

POS SCHIFF WAS CENSURED FOR LYING ABOUT TRUMP AND PUTIN STEALING THE ELECTION.

How the hell do idiots in Cali vote for this asshole?

 

[Unkotare]

What has Ka$h done to deserve anyone's respect?

What have YOU?

 

[Blaster]

Kash really put the hurt on those liberal Senators.

 

[struth]

Chris Meyer.

Chris Meyer.

um he was fired for failing to meet the standards, uphold their constitutional oath and effectuate the mission,

 

[Blaster]

The Kash and Shifty back and forth was epic.

POS SCHIFF WAS CENSURED FOR LYING ABOUT TRUMP AND PUTIN STEALING THE ELECTION.

How the hell do idiots in Cali vote for this asshole?

Because they are all obedient Democrats.

 

[Moonglow]

Cool story, most people that get canned don't think they deserved it.

Just like all convicted felons claim to be innocent.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Because they are all obedient Democrats.

My buddy who lived in Studio city moved to Scottsdale because he couldnt take the left wing bullshit.

 

[Luckyone]

It was beautiful. Hirono has to be the dumbest pineapple ever grown in Hawaii. Watch the hearing and comment.

Totally stupid OP. Patel's case is one of "believability", with the left accusing him of lying and misrepresentation and the right believing him totally.

At this moment and until factual evidence one way or the other is presented, there is nothing to discuss/debate.

You (BS Filter), being a Trump supporter, it is understandable that you would defend Patel. I totally believe he is unqualified for the job and to boot, he is not an impartial person (he is politically motivated), which in and of itself is a bad thing to be for such a position.

Nonetheless, only time will tell who is right.

Here is a better explanation of what I just said:

AI Overview

Assessing Kash Patel's believability at the September 16, 2025, Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing is subject to partisan and individual interpretation. During the combative four-hour hearing, Democrats heavily criticized Patel, while Republicans generally defended him. The contentious session centered on Patel's leadership, his social media posts regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk, his handling of Jeffrey Epstein case files, and accusations of politically motivated firings within the FBI.

Arguments against Patel's credibility
Contradictory statements:

• Charlie Kirk assassination: Critics highlighted Patel's actions following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. He posted on social media that a subject was in custody, only to have to retract the statement after that person was released. Though Patel later admitted he "could have been more careful in my verbiage," he did not see the initial inaccurate post as a mistake. Ranking Democrat Dick Durbin called the post a violation of effective law enforcement practices.
• Epstein files: Patel faced questioning about the Jeffrey Epstein case files and his claim that the FBI had no credible information that Epstein trafficked minors to others. When challenged by Senator Adam Schiff, Patel seemed to contradict himself by stating he "never said Jeffrey Epstein didn't traffic anyone else," leading to a heated argument.
• Personnel firings: When questioned about the termination of FBI agents who worked on cases involving Donald Trump, Patel denied firing them for political reasons. However, Senator Richard Blumenthal called him a liar, referencing a lawsuit by three former agents who claim they were fired as part of a "campaign of retribution".

Past and present behavior:

• Hostility toward senators: Throughout the hearing, Patel repeatedly clashed with Democratic senators. The most explosive incident involved a shouting match with Senator Adam Schiff, whom Patel called a "liar," a "political buffoon at best," and the "biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate". This behavior was seen by some as a reflection of an internet "troll" rather than a credible law enforcement leader.
• History of dishonesty: Durbin and other Democrats pointed to Patel's past behavior, referencing claims that he lied under oath during his January 2025 confirmation hearing. Durbin cited whistleblower allegations that Patel was involved in an FBI purge despite denying knowledge of it under oath, as well as Patel's claim that he couldn't recall far-right podcaster Stew Peters, despite appearing on his show multiple times.
• Loyalty to Trump: Senator Chris Coons described Patel's testimony as a "performance" meant for "an audience of one: President Trump". Coons's perspective was that Patel's actions, including alleged retaliatory firings, stemmed from political loyalty rather than a commitment to the FBI's independence.

Arguments supporting Patel's credibility
FBI accomplishments:

• Crime reduction: Patel took credit for the FBI's role in a drop in the national murder rate, stating, "we are on track to have the lowest murder rate in modern American history". However, a former FBI special agent disputed that Patel could take credit, noting that most murders are local matters.
• Agency reforms: Patel touted his efforts to restructure the FBI by empowering field offices and cracking down on violent crime. He also claimed morale has "never been higher" among FBI agents under his leadership, though reports from inside the bureau suggest otherwise.

Responses to accusations:

• Defense of firings: In response to accusations of politically motivated firings, Patel stated that agents are only terminated for failing to uphold their constitutional duties and are evaluated on "merit and qualification".
• Blaming past administrations: Regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, Patel deflected responsibility by attributing the issues to Alex Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney who approved a lenient plea deal in 2008. He called the deal the "original sin" and argued it hampered later investigations.

Republican support:

• Praise for performance: Some Republican senators, including John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, and Thom Tillis, expressed support for Patel's leadership. Tillis advised Patel not to "take the bait" during the heated exchanges with Democrats.
• Applause from allies: Outside the hearing, figures like House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan have praised Patel's work, portraying him as a figure who is fixing a weaponized FBI.

Conclusion
Whether Kash Patel was "believable" is a question with no objective answer and depends on individual perspective and political alignment.
For Democrats and critics, Patel's testimony was undermined by a history of misleading statements, evasive answers, and combative behavior. His actions following the Kirk assassination and inconsistencies regarding the Epstein files were cited as examples of a lack of candor, while accusations of politicizing the FBI further damaged his credibility.
For Republicans and his supporters, Patel's defiant posture was a necessary defense against a hostile and politically motivated line of questioning. They view his testimony as a testament to his commitment to reforming the FBI and protecting the agency from its own past weaponization.

 

[Nostra]

Patel fired FBI agent because some podcaster accused him of being part of the investigation into Trump.

The FBI agent wasn’t, but Patel fired him anyway because he was worried about what people were saying about him on social media.

Link?

 

[Nostra]

There was no plot. Durham investigated for years and found nothing.

Would you prefer scheme?

 

[struth]

Totally stupid OP. Patel's case is one of "believability", with the left accusing him of lying and misrepresentation and the right believing him totally.

At this moment and until factual evidence one way or the other is presented, there is nothing to discuss/debate.

You (BS Filter), being a Trump supporter, it is understandable that you would defend Patel. I totally believe he is unqualified for the job and to boot, he is not an impartial person (he is politically motivated), which in and of itself is a bad thing to be for such a position.

Nonetheless, only time will tell who is right.

Here is a better explanation of what I just said:

AI Overview

Assessing Kash Patel's believability at the September 16, 2025, Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing is subject to partisan and individual interpretation. During the combative four-hour hearing, Democrats heavily criticized Patel, while Republicans generally defended him. The contentious session centered on Patel's leadership, his social media posts regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk, his handling of Jeffrey Epstein case files, and accusations of politically motivated firings within the FBI.

Arguments against Patel's credibility
Contradictory statements:

• Charlie Kirk assassination: Critics highlighted Patel's actions following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. He posted on social media that a subject was in custody, only to have to retract the statement after that person was released. Though Patel later admitted he "could have been more careful in my verbiage," he did not see the initial inaccurate post as a mistake. Ranking Democrat Dick Durbin called the post a violation of effective law enforcement practices.
• Epstein files: Patel faced questioning about the Jeffrey Epstein case files and his claim that the FBI had no credible information that Epstein trafficked minors to others. When challenged by Senator Adam Schiff, Patel seemed to contradict himself by stating he "never said Jeffrey Epstein didn't traffic anyone else," leading to a heated argument.
• Personnel firings: When questioned about the termination of FBI agents who worked on cases involving Donald Trump, Patel denied firing them for political reasons. However, Senator Richard Blumenthal called him a liar, referencing a lawsuit by three former agents who claim they were fired as part of a "campaign of retribution".

Past and present behavior:

• Hostility toward senators: Throughout the hearing, Patel repeatedly clashed with Democratic senators. The most explosive incident involved a shouting match with Senator Adam Schiff, whom Patel called a "liar," a "political buffoon at best," and the "biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate". This behavior was seen by some as a reflection of an internet "troll" rather than a credible law enforcement leader.
• History of dishonesty: Durbin and other Democrats pointed to Patel's past behavior, referencing claims that he lied under oath during his January 2025 confirmation hearing. Durbin cited whistleblower allegations that Patel was involved in an FBI purge despite denying knowledge of it under oath, as well as Patel's claim that he couldn't recall far-right podcaster Stew Peters, despite appearing on his show multiple times.
• Loyalty to Trump: Senator Chris Coons described Patel's testimony as a "performance" meant for "an audience of one: President Trump". Coons's perspective was that Patel's actions, including alleged retaliatory firings, stemmed from political loyalty rather than a commitment to the FBI's independence.

Arguments supporting Patel's credibility
FBI accomplishments:

• Crime reduction: Patel took credit for the FBI's role in a drop in the national murder rate, stating, "we are on track to have the lowest murder rate in modern American history". However, a former FBI special agent disputed that Patel could take credit, noting that most murders are local matters.
• Agency reforms: Patel touted his efforts to restructure the FBI by empowering field offices and cracking down on violent crime. He also claimed morale has "never been higher" among FBI agents under his leadership, though reports from inside the bureau suggest otherwise.

Responses to accusations:

• Defense of firings: In response to accusations of politically motivated firings, Patel stated that agents are only terminated for failing to uphold their constitutional duties and are evaluated on "merit and qualification".
• Blaming past administrations: Regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, Patel deflected responsibility by attributing the issues to Alex Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney who approved a lenient plea deal in 2008. He called the deal the "original sin" and argued it hampered later investigations.

Republican support:

• Praise for performance: Some Republican senators, including John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, and Thom Tillis, expressed support for Patel's leadership. Tillis advised Patel not to "take the bait" during the heated exchanges with Democrats.
• Applause from allies: Outside the hearing, figures like House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan have praised Patel's work, portraying him as a figure who is fixing a weaponized FBI.

Conclusion
Whether Kash Patel was "believable" is a question with no objective answer and depends on individual perspective and political alignment.
For Democrats and critics, Patel's testimony was undermined by a history of misleading statements, evasive answers, and combative behavior. His actions following the Kirk assassination and inconsistencies regarding the Epstein files were cited as examples of a lack of candor, while accusations of politicizing the FBI further damaged his credibility.
For Republicans and his supporters, Patel's defiant posture was a necessary defense against a hostile and politically motivated line of questioning. They view his testimony as a testament to his commitment to reforming the FBI and protecting the agency from its own past weaponization.

Yes, Dems don't believe the truth, because it undermines their false narratives.

 

[Marener]

um he was fired for failing to meet the standards, uphold their constitutional oath and effectuate the mission,

Oh? What exactly did he do?

 

[Nostra]

Totally stupid OP. Patel's case is one of "believability", with the left accusing him of lying and misrepresentation and the right believing him totally.

At this moment and until factual evidence one way or the other is presented, there is nothing to discuss/debate.

You (BS Filter), being a Trump supporter, it is understandable that you would defend Patel. I totally believe he is unqualified for the job and to boot, he is not an impartial person (he is politically motivated), which in and of itself is a bad thing to be for such a position.

Nonetheless, only time will tell who is right.

Here is a better explanation of what I just said:

AI Overview

Assessing Kash Patel's believability at the September 16, 2025, Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing is subject to partisan and individual interpretation. During the combative four-hour hearing, Democrats heavily criticized Patel, while Republicans generally defended him. The contentious session centered on Patel's leadership, his social media posts regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk, his handling of Jeffrey Epstein case files, and accusations of politically motivated firings within the FBI.

Arguments against Patel's credibility
Contradictory statements:

• Charlie Kirk assassination: Critics highlighted Patel's actions following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. He posted on social media that a subject was in custody, only to have to retract the statement after that person was released. Though Patel later admitted he "could have been more careful in my verbiage," he did not see the initial inaccurate post as a mistake. Ranking Democrat Dick Durbin called the post a violation of effective law enforcement practices.
• Epstein files: Patel faced questioning about the Jeffrey Epstein case files and his claim that the FBI had no credible information that Epstein trafficked minors to others. When challenged by Senator Adam Schiff, Patel seemed to contradict himself by stating he "never said Jeffrey Epstein didn't traffic anyone else," leading to a heated argument.
• Personnel firings: When questioned about the termination of FBI agents who worked on cases involving Donald Trump, Patel denied firing them for political reasons. However, Senator Richard Blumenthal called him a liar, referencing a lawsuit by three former agents who claim they were fired as part of a "campaign of retribution".

Past and present behavior:

• Hostility toward senators: Throughout the hearing, Patel repeatedly clashed with Democratic senators. The most explosive incident involved a shouting match with Senator Adam Schiff, whom Patel called a "liar," a "political buffoon at best," and the "biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate". This behavior was seen by some as a reflection of an internet "troll" rather than a credible law enforcement leader.
• History of dishonesty: Durbin and other Democrats pointed to Patel's past behavior, referencing claims that he lied under oath during his January 2025 confirmation hearing. Durbin cited whistleblower allegations that Patel was involved in an FBI purge despite denying knowledge of it under oath, as well as Patel's claim that he couldn't recall far-right podcaster Stew Peters, despite appearing on his show multiple times.
• Loyalty to Trump: Senator Chris Coons described Patel's testimony as a "performance" meant for "an audience of one: President Trump". Coons's perspective was that Patel's actions, including alleged retaliatory firings, stemmed from political loyalty rather than a commitment to the FBI's independence.

Arguments supporting Patel's credibility
FBI accomplishments:

• Crime reduction: Patel took credit for the FBI's role in a drop in the national murder rate, stating, "we are on track to have the lowest murder rate in modern American history". However, a former FBI special agent disputed that Patel could take credit, noting that most murders are local matters.
• Agency reforms: Patel touted his efforts to restructure the FBI by empowering field offices and cracking down on violent crime. He also claimed morale has "never been higher" among FBI agents under his leadership, though reports from inside the bureau suggest otherwise.

Responses to accusations:

• Defense of firings: In response to accusations of politically motivated firings, Patel stated that agents are only terminated for failing to uphold their constitutional duties and are evaluated on "merit and qualification".
• Blaming past administrations: Regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, Patel deflected responsibility by attributing the issues to Alex Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney who approved a lenient plea deal in 2008. He called the deal the "original sin" and argued it hampered later investigations.

Republican support:

• Praise for performance: Some Republican senators, including John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, and Thom Tillis, expressed support for Patel's leadership. Tillis advised Patel not to "take the bait" during the heated exchanges with Democrats.
• Applause from allies: Outside the hearing, figures like House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan have praised Patel's work, portraying him as a figure who is fixing a weaponized FBI.

Conclusion
Whether Kash Patel was "believable" is a question with no objective answer and depends on individual perspective and political alignment.
For Democrats and critics, Patel's testimony was undermined by a history of misleading statements, evasive answers, and combative behavior. His actions following the Kirk assassination and inconsistencies regarding the Epstein files were cited as examples of a lack of candor, while accusations of politicizing the FBI further damaged his credibility.
For Republicans and his supporters, Patel's defiant posture was a necessary defense against a hostile and politically motivated line of questioning. They view his testimony as a testament to his commitment to reforming the FBI and protecting the agency from its own past weaponization.

Why do you rely on fake intelligence to tell you what to think?

Oh yeah, you are void of any real intelligence.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was beautiful. Hirono has to be the dumbest pineapple ever grown in Hawaii. Watch the hearing and comment.

Democrats are out of touch with reality.

 

[struth]

Oh? What exactly did he do?

um, failed to meet the standards, uphold their constitutional oath and effectuate the mission,