As you watch this link coverage of this hearing, ask yourself why the AP and Fox chose NOT to show Kash Patel while he was giving his opening statement. They are showing the Senators, not Kash Patel.
Also, my normal conduct during these hearings is to mute the irritating -to me- Democrats. I am changing that conduct today to BeLikeCharlie. I'm honoring Charlie in this way, but I gotta tell ya, it's hard.
Good for you. Yes it is hard to listen to them. From these turds it is absolutely without intention to dialog with others, it is just virtue signaling, grandstanding, etc. They dont care how you answer, they're gonna twist it.
Having said that, more people than ever are paying attention, and to see and hear the contrast, that is important, now more than ever.
Listening to Agadorn Spartacus Booker spewing spittle along with his hate-fueled venom and vitriol all over Kash Patel was like the scene in Jaws when we first meet Quint. We can hardly live through each slow century of those fingernails inching down that chalkboard >:^ 0 )
I was working on something about that time and thought he was Watermelon head at first. Was glad to hear the next Senator correct my understanding of who that was. Spartacus and Watermelon head are both into the theatrics it seems.
Tell me about it...the dems are NOTHING BUT BLOVATING MONSTERS under another name!!!!!! Couldn't stand to watch it VERY long, but Kash had some monster remarks to Shifty Schiff!!!!!
We should have a poll on GAW to vote for the most annoying Democrats in either Senate or House. I think Fauxcahontas beats Schumer by a nose. But perhaps others think someone else is most annoying :)
Another observation of the Democrats questions. They seem to be very concerned that some were let go in the FBI. They seem to be very concerned about certain individuals no longer working for the FBI.
It made me go hmmm. Why the fear regarding the terminations?
I watched part of the hearing. Dick Durbin was the one pointing out the 5,000 people let go. I wish, after all of the criminal arrest statistics Kash gave, he would have looked Durbin in the eye and said, "all of that with 5,000 fewer employees"
Kash Patel responded to Durbin's questions trying to target Bongino by defending his 15 years of service plus Kash s own 16 years of service. Kash pointed out their combined 31 years of service.
Made me go hmmm as I remembered that Charlie Kirk was 31 years old when he was assassinated.
What service does Kash have? He was never in the military. His only public service was 5 minutes in the first Trump white house and his role now. Kash graduated from college 15 years ago and he spent 10 years processing arrest warrents for Miami-Dade while he was running the South Asian Bar Association of North America where he encourages South Asians to move to the US and become lawyers.
I don't fully trust the guy, especially when he is now saying that Epstein didn't traffic any kids.
Amy Klobuchar rightfully decried the violence that occurred. Where is our reverence for life??
IMHO, it is not acceptable to use these tragedies to forward an agenda. Correction. Unless that agenda is to protect Life and Freedom of US citizens in the US (everywhere?).
Often we need to check for "Create the problem to solve the problem."
Watermelon head got called out by Kash Patel. I prayed during this. It was very clear the scriptwriter (Pencilneck) was doing his thing for his crowd of however many there are.
It took all I had to not mute but I'm glad I kept listening to the end of this portion. It reminded me about how strong our FBI director is in Truth. I'm still praying for him.
I was particularly cognizant of Kash Patel's responses to Blumenthal's hostile, fearful questions. It made me think that Kash is also trying to "BeLikeCharlie" by answering with facts.
What are the Senate Judiciary requirements of oversight of the FBI? Is it required in a statute or rule?
The Senate Judiciary Committee's oversight of the FBI is a requirement established by the U.S. Constitution and refined by statute, not just a procedural rule. It stems from Congress's broad constitutional authority to legislate, investigate, and maintain checks and balances on the Executive Branch. The committee's oversight serves to ensure the FBI operates within its legal and statutory boundaries.
Basis of the oversight requirement
Constitutional Authority: The primary basis for congressional oversight comes from the powers granted to Congress under the U.S. Constitution, which includes the ability to conduct investigations related to subjects on which it can validly legislate. In 1927, the Supreme Court case McGrain v. Daugherty affirmed that Congress has the power to compel witness testimony during its investigations.
Statutory Mandate: A number of laws reinforce congressional oversight. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 expanded the investigative powers of all standing committees and authorized them to issue subpoenas. Specific statutes, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, have also included requirements for the FBI to report to Congress on its use of certain authorities.
Committee Jurisdiction: The Senate Judiciary Committee's rules specify its oversight role over the Department of Justice, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies. This jurisdiction includes reviewing the FBI's budget, programs, and handling of specific investigations.
Primary oversight requirements
As part of its oversight, the Senate Judiciary Committee can and does:
Hold oversight hearings: These hearings involve the FBI Director, Attorney General, and other officials who testify before the committee to answer questions on the bureau's operations, policies, and investigations.
Conduct investigations: Committees can use their subpoena power to compel testimony and demand documents and records from the FBI. These investigations are used to examine potential misconduct or issues with agency programs.
Review appropriations: The committee participates in the review of the FBI's budget, which provides a key mechanism for influencing and overseeing its priorities.
Propose and review legislation: Oversight findings often lead the committee to consider new legislation to either expand or restrict the bureau's authorities. This was seen with the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent whistleblower protection legislation.
Ensure compliance: The committee works to ensure that the FBI complies with both existing statutes and the spirit of the law, using its power to call out non-compliance and demand accountability.
While the oversight mandate is a firm requirement rooted in constitutional and statutory law, the specific actions taken—such as the frequency and scope of hearings or investigations—are at the discretion of the committee. The level of oversight can fluctuate depending on the political environment, the nature of threats facing the country, and the committee's priorities.
Should Senators try to entrap the FBI during their oversight hearing for lawfare purpose?
Senators should not try to entrap the FBI during an oversight hearing for lawfare purposes. Such an effort would be a breach of their constitutional duty, undermine the rule of law, and erode public trust in both Congress and the FBI. 👉Oversight hearings are meant to ensure government accountability, not to manufacture ammunition for partisan attacks. 👈
The constitutional purpose of oversight
Under the U.S. Constitution, the Senate has a duty to provide oversight of the Executive Branch, which includes the FBI. The purpose of this oversight is to:
Ensure that federal agencies are functioning properly and acting within the law.
Promote transparency and accountability to the American people.
Investigate credible allegations of misconduct or abuse of power.
Entrapping witnesses for lawfare purposes runs counter to these duties. It would be an attempt to use the power of the federal government not for the public good, but for partisan advantage.
The definition and dangers of lawfare
"Lawfare" refers to the strategic misuse of the legal system to intimidate, harass, or delegitimize an opponent. In a political context, it means using the law not to pursue justice, but as a weapon to damage political adversaries.
Attempting to entrap an FBI official would be a clear example of lawfare. It would:
Subvert the legal process: Oversight hearings operate under rules and norms meant to elicit truthful information. Manufacturing or distorting evidence violates these principles.
Harm government institutions: When one branch of government uses its power to attack another, it corrodes faith in both. It creates a cycle of political retribution that makes it impossible to address genuine issues.
Damage the rule of law: The rule of law holds that everyone is subject to and accountable under the law. Using the legal system to pursue political ends, rather than justice, is a perversion of this fundamental principle.
The need for proper conduct
To maintain the integrity of the oversight process and the government, Senators should conduct hearings in a manner that is:
Impartial: Questions should be focused on facts and genuine concerns about government operations, not on scoring political points.
Transparent: Lawmakers should be clear about the purpose of their investigation and not conceal an ulterior, partisan motive.
Respectful of legal boundaries: While Senators can be aggressive in their questioning, they must operate within the legal and ethical bounds of their role.
In short, using an oversight hearing to "entrap" a witness for "lawfare" is antithetical to the principles of good governance and the constitutional role of Congress.
After reviewing these AI answers about purpose, I give this hearing a B minus. I wish the hearings were closer to the Constitutional intention of the oversight. I say this as I glance over to the three copies of my Turning Point USA pocket Constitutions. Maybe someone will remind us all of the true purpose beforehand next time.
As you watch this link coverage of this hearing, ask yourself why the AP and Fox chose NOT to show Kash Patel while he was giving his opening statement. They are showing the Senators, not Kash Patel.
Also, my normal conduct during these hearings is to mute the irritating -to me- Democrats. I am changing that conduct today to BeLikeCharlie. I'm honoring Charlie in this way, but I gotta tell ya, it's hard.
Good for you. Yes it is hard to listen to them. From these turds it is absolutely without intention to dialog with others, it is just virtue signaling, grandstanding, etc. They dont care how you answer, they're gonna twist it.
Having said that, more people than ever are paying attention, and to see and hear the contrast, that is important, now more than ever.
Listening to Agadorn Spartacus Booker spewing spittle along with his hate-fueled venom and vitriol all over Kash Patel was like the scene in Jaws when we first meet Quint. We can hardly live through each slow century of those fingernails inching down that chalkboard >:^ 0 )
I was working on something about that time and thought he was Watermelon head at first. Was glad to hear the next Senator correct my understanding of who that was. Spartacus and Watermelon head are both into the theatrics it seems.
Tell me about it...the dems are NOTHING BUT BLOVATING MONSTERS under another name!!!!!! Couldn't stand to watch it VERY long, but Kash had some monster remarks to Shifty Schiff!!!!!
We should have a poll on GAW to vote for the most annoying Democrats in either Senate or House. I think Fauxcahontas beats Schumer by a nose. But perhaps others think someone else is most annoying :)
Another observation of the Democrats questions. They seem to be very concerned that some were let go in the FBI. They seem to be very concerned about certain individuals no longer working for the FBI.
It made me go hmmm. Why the fear regarding the terminations?
I watched part of the hearing. Dick Durbin was the one pointing out the 5,000 people let go. I wish, after all of the criminal arrest statistics Kash gave, he would have looked Durbin in the eye and said, "all of that with 5,000 fewer employees"
Good point.
Kash Patel responded to Durbin's questions trying to target Bongino by defending his 15 years of service plus Kash s own 16 years of service. Kash pointed out their combined 31 years of service.
Made me go hmmm as I remembered that Charlie Kirk was 31 years old when he was assassinated.
What service does Kash have? He was never in the military. His only public service was 5 minutes in the first Trump white house and his role now. Kash graduated from college 15 years ago and he spent 10 years processing arrest warrents for Miami-Dade while he was running the South Asian Bar Association of North America where he encourages South Asians to move to the US and become lawyers.
I don't fully trust the guy, especially when he is now saying that Epstein didn't traffic any kids.
https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/director-patel
I read it.
Amy Klobuchar rightfully decried the violence that occurred. Where is our reverence for life??
IMHO, it is not acceptable to use these tragedies to forward an agenda. Correction. Unless that agenda is to protect Life and Freedom of US citizens in the US (everywhere?).
Often we need to check for "Create the problem to solve the problem."
Watermelon head got called out by Kash Patel. I prayed during this. It was very clear the scriptwriter (Pencilneck) was doing his thing for his crowd of however many there are.
It took all I had to not mute but I'm glad I kept listening to the end of this portion. It reminded me about how strong our FBI director is in Truth. I'm still praying for him.
2.7
I was particularly cognizant of Kash Patel's responses to Blumenthal's hostile, fearful questions. It made me think that Kash is also trying to "BeLikeCharlie" by answering with facts.
Thank you for your commentary. Helps us that dont have the time this moment to watch.
I absolutely LOVE how Kash is taking NO SH*T from the dem senators. It is a thing of beauty.
After listening to Hirono questions, I am deducing that Democrats narrative is to focus on personnel losses in the FBI.
Hmmm.
SEN. KENNEDY: "Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to?"
PATEL: "There is no credible information, none ... that he trafficked to other individuals."
What the fuck is this?
OK, my last comment on this.
From my questions to AI...
What are the Senate Judiciary requirements of oversight of the FBI? Is it required in a statute or rule?
Should Senators try to entrap the FBI during their oversight hearing for lawfare purpose?
After reviewing these AI answers about purpose, I give this hearing a B minus. I wish the hearings were closer to the Constitutional intention of the oversight. I say this as I glance over to the three copies of my Turning Point USA pocket Constitutions. Maybe someone will remind us all of the true purpose beforehand next time.