The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee slammed Democrats on the panel this week for their attempts to schedule a second confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump’s FBI director nominee, Kash Patel, describing the effort Tuesday night as a ‘delay tactic’ designed to stall Patel from taking the reins of the sprawling law enforcement agency.
In a statement Tuesday night, Grassley criticized what he described as the ‘baseless’ attempt by Sen. Dick Durbin and other Democrats on the panel to push for a second hearing, noting that Patel testified for more than five hours before the committee and disclosed to the panel ‘thousands of pages’ of records, as well as nearly 150 pages of responses to lawmakers’ written questions.
‘No one was convinced by the minority’s baseless efforts to mischaracterize and malign Kash Patel,’ Grassley said. ‘It’s additionally outrageous to assert that a nominee should come before the Senate to answer for government actions that occurred prior to their time at an agency.’
‘Further hearings on his nomination are unnecessary,’ Grassley concluded.
He said the committee still intends to vote on Patel’s confirmation as FBI director as early as next week.
Grassley’s remarks – and his unrelenting support for Trump’s FBI director nominee – come after the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, urged Grassley to delay Patel’s confirmation vote Tuesday, citing what he described as ‘apparent falsehoods’ in Patel’s testimony last week, as well as the ‘recent removals and reassignments of FBI career civil servants.’
The letter, signed by all 10 Democrats on the panel, urged Grassley to delay Patel’s confirmation vote until Patel agreed to testify for a second time under oath about the recent removals and reassignments of FBI civil servants; and until DOJ agrees to provide the panel with volume two of former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report that refers or pertains to Patel’s testimony or actions, among other things.
‘Given the gravity of these matters, which bear directly on Mr. Patel’s integrity, his suitability to lead the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, and his regard for safeguarding classified information, we ask that the Chairman schedule an additional hearing for Mr. Patel to explain these matters in person,’ the Democrats said.
The letter – and Grassley’s swift dismissal of the effort – comes amid two new lawsuits from anonymous FBI agents that were filed separately this week. Both lawsuits sought to block any public identification of FBI employees who were involved in the Jan. 6 investigations into the U.S. Capitol riots after a list of agents involved and their roles was shared with DOJ leadership Tuesday afternoon in keeping with an earlier request from acting U.S. deputy attorney general, Emil Bove.
Both groups of FBI agents asked the court for emergency injunctive relief to block the names or identities of FBI agents involved in the Jan. 6 investigations from being shared, citing concerns that the probe or any retaliatory measures carried out as a result could have a chilling effect on the work of the FBI or spark retaliatory efforts inside the bureau.
Lawyers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent’s Association, a voluntary professional association representing more than 14,000 active and retired FBI special agents, told reporters Tuesday night that they see the Jan. 6 request as a ‘prelude’ to potential adverse action or mass layoffs in the bureau, citing fears that agents name could be subject to threats, harassment or targeting either by the public or inside the bureau.
To date, there are no known plans to conduct sweeping removals or take punitive action against the agents involved.
One retired FBI agent also urged calm, noting to Fox News in an interview that the acting director and deputy director of the FBI still remain in place.
This person also stressed that the Jan. 6 investigation and the FBI personnel involved in investigating each case ‘fully followed Bureau and DOJ guidelines,’ and that violations of federal statutes were ‘proven beyond a reasonable doubt in federal courts of law.’