Kash Patel, President Trump’s pick to run the F.B.I., repeatedly evaded the question of whether he would investigate officials on a published list of his perceived enemies during his confirmation hearing on Thursday, even as he sought to allay fears about his fitness to serve and his fealty to President Trump.
In trying to distance himself from far-right associates and his own statements, Mr. Patel, a cocky and confrontational Trump loyalist, suggested he disagreed with Mr. Trump’s decision to pardon Jan. 6 rioters who attacked law enforcement officials. It was a rare divergence from a president who selected him to run the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency.
Asked if he agreed with Mr. Trump’s broad grant of clemency on the day he was inaugurated, Mr. Patel, a former congressional staff member and national security aide, said he had “repeatedly, often publicly and privately, said there can never be a tolerance for violence against law enforcement.”
The nomination of Mr. Patel, 44, has upended the post-Watergate tradition of picking nonpartisan F.B.I. directors with extensive law enforcement experience. If confirmed, Mr. Patel could provide Mr. Trump with a direct line into the bureau, possibly eliminating guardrails meant to insulate it from White House interference.
While the hearing addressed a range of issues stemming from Mr. Patel’s actions and statements, Democrats time and again accused Mr. Patel of prioritizing his allegiance to Mr. Trump over adherence to the rule of law, a charge the nominee forcefully denied.
When Senator Mazie K. Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat, asked if he planned to investigate the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and others he has attacked publicly, Mr. Patel said he would abide by the law and the Constitution and would scrutinize only those he deemed likely to have committed crimes.
Mr. Patel said he would not go “backwards” when asked if he planned to investigate his immediate predecessor, Christopher A. Wray, who stepped down after Mr. Trump made plain that he would fire him.
“Will you lie for the president of the United States? Will you lie for Donald Trump?” asked Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, his voice rising to a shout.
“No,” Mr. Patel answered.
Mr. Patel, who has repeatedly accused the bureau’s leadership of weaponizing its vast powers to target Mr. Trump, told the committee he believed that 98 percent of the F.B.I. was made up of “courageous apolitical warriors for justice” who “just need better leadership.”
He did not explain how he determined that the other 2 percent, about 760 people out of a work force of 38,000 employees, were supposedly partisan.
Mr. Patel said his main goal as director would be to fight violent crime and protect the country from three principal national security threats — terrorism, Chinese espionage and Iranian aggression.
It is unclear whether Mr. Patel has enough G.O.P. votes to be confirmed, although Republicans expressed confidence that he would prevail. When he was named in November, Democrats believed that his unflagging loyalty to Mr. Trump — and past inflammatory comments about the F.B.I. — would incite a popular backlash.
That has not yet happened. And Mr. Patel’s hearing, which coincided with the equally contentious confirmation hearings for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, generated a rhetorical heat. But it did not appear to ignite a political conflagration that threatened his nomination by undermining support among the Republican majority.
In part, that was because Mr. Patel, like many Trump nominees, employed a deft duck-and-deny strategy: Mr. Patel said he could not remember details about unflattering episodes or damaging alliances. He answered specific queries with sweeping generalizations. He accused his accusers of distorting his words, even after they were read to him verbatim.
When Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, asked why he appeared on a podcast hosted by Stew Peters, who has often expressed antisemitic and white nationalist views, Mr. Patel claimed he could not remember.
“You made eight separate appearances on his podcast,” Mr. Durbin said.
When Mr. Durbin wanted to know why he has associated with so many extremists and conspiracy theorists, Mr. Patel offered an extraordinary answer that made Democrats guffaw: He said he went on such podcasts to “disavow them of their false impressions and to talk to them about the truth.”
Mr. Patel, alternating between deference and defiance, also said he “rejected outright QAnon baseless conspiracy theories” after previously saying he agreed with “a lot” of what the movement promoted.
During several exchanges, Mr. Patel denied that the 60-person list included as an appendix to his book “Government Gangsters” was an enemies list. The list has incited deep concerns that he would deploy the vast powers of the bureau to punish Mr. Trump’s perceived political opponents or those in government who worked on investigations that ensnared him.
“It’s not an enemies list,” Mr. Patel said. “It’s a total mischaracterization.”
Under questioning from Senator Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, Mr. Patel repeatedly declined to say that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won the 2020 election, indicating only that Mr. Biden had been “certified” as the president.
“The other way to say it is he won,” Mr. Welch said. “What’s so hard about just saying Biden won the 2020 election?”
The most bitter exchange of the day took place when Senator Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat who clashed with Mr. Patel repeatedly over the years, accused him of disrespecting the service of Capitol Police officers injured in the Jan. 6 attack by collaborating on a song written to raise money for the families of people imprisoned for ransacking the building.
Mr. Schiff urged Mr. Patel to turn around in his chair to look at officers providing security for the hearing.
“Have the courage to look them in the eye,” Mr. Schiff said, urging Mr. Patel to address the officers.
Mr. Patel did not.
Nonetheless, Mr. Patel seemed to relish the spotlight and became more relaxed and confident as the hearing dragged on. He parried a tough question from Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, by reminding her that she had only a few minutes left to interrogate him under committee rules.
The Judiciary Committee’s leaders set the partisan tone of the hearing in their opening statements. Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is the panel’s chairman, painted a portrait of a politicized F.B.I. that he said was “in crisis,” a characterization that many of the committee’s Republicans embraced in their questioning. Democrats singled out caustic past statements by Mr. Patel about the agency he seeks to lead.
Mr. Durbin said Mr. Patel “does not meet the standard” to lead the F.B.I., citing his relative lack of law enforcement experience and unflinching loyalty to Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump’s choice to run the Justice Department, Pam Bondi, already assured senators that there would be no such list of perceived rivals if she were confirmed as attorney general. But the abrupt firings of prosecutors who investigated Mr. Trump raises the question of whether Mr. Patel will carry out a campaign of retribution, as both he and the president have long promised.
In particular, former and current agents are concerned that Mr. Patel will target investigators who worked on the inquiry into Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia given that he and the president have repeatedly denounced it as hoax. The department’s top watchdog and a special counsel examining the origins of the inquiry have concluded it was legitimate.
Mr. Patel has vowed to drastically reshape the F.B.I., but whether that threat is real or just bombast remains unknown.
Mr. Trump’s selection of Mr. Patel was unusual in many ways — not the least of which is the fact that he asserted his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself.
He invoked the right before a grand jury examining whether Mr. Trump had mishandled national security secrets by repeatedly refusing to return classified documents. Mr. Patel is believed to have been questioned about his public claim that Mr. Trump had declassified all the government documents he kept after leaving office.
At first, Mr. Patel refused to answer, citing the Fifth Amendment, according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe grand jury issues. Prosecutors eventually granted Mr. Patel limited immunity, to find out what defense, if any, he might be able to offer for his former boss.
Democrats repeatedly pressured Mr. Patel to publicly release his testimony, but he refused.
Heading into the hearing, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, one of the most senior Republicans in the chamber, predicted that Mr. Patel would eventually be confirmed, after some sparring, “on a party-line vote.”
True to form, Republicans rallied around Mr. Patel, brushing aside questions about his qualifications and overall fitness to air familiar grievances about the F.B.I.’s conduct in its investigations into Mr. Trump.
But in private, many Republicans have expressed reservations about his temperament and pressed for assurances he would act responsibly — and independently — if confirmed.
Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, was one of the few members of the committee’s majority to offer a hint of those concerns, giving avuncular but pointed advice to Mr. Patel.
“Don’t go over there and burn that place down; go over there and make it better,” said Mr. Kennedy, who has been a fierce F.B.I. critic.
The post Patel Works to Persuade Senators His Loyalty to Trump Is Not Absolute appeared first on New York Times.
