The situation: “the smell of lies” of Kash Patel

The offense codes applicable to the FBI internal disciplinary process punish the FBI employees for “lack of frankness”. Code 2.5 of the offense (lack of frankness – no oath) prohibited “(k) now providing false information during verbal or written remuneration, not under oath, to a supervisor, another office of the office in An authoritarian position or another government agency, when the employee is questioned about his conduct or the conduct of another person. “Code 2.6 of the offense (lack of franchise – under oath) prohibited” (k) now providing false information in a verbal or written declaration made under oath “. Under the two offense codes, the lack of franchise is defined to include “false declarations, false declarations, failure to be fully frank, or concealment or omission of a material fact / information.”

Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice, Michael Horowitz

On Wednesday, the situation focused on the unique danger of Kash Patel among the candidates of Donald Trump, in the context of the purge of career employees at the Ministry of Justice – a purge which is now spread to the FBI itself.

The parameters of the current FBI purge being still clear – for the file, I suspect that this will be much larger than what has been reported so far – I mean today the veracity of Kash Patel During her hearing yesterday before the Senate’s judicial committee.

Last March, in response to the unlikely testimony of the District Prosecutor of Fulton County, Fani Willis, and his special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, judge Scott McAfee was dryly observed that “a smell of meetacity remains” on the Details of their relationship. He has not accumulated Willis or Wade of perjury. It was not his work, he wrote, “to find each instance of potential dishonesty of each witness or defendant never presented in an open hearing.” But he observed that the “reasonable questions” remained as to whether Willis and Wade “testified irregularly”.

I think we should say something similar about the testimony of Kash Patel. I am not, to be clear, to accuse him of perjury. I rather accuse him of showing a lack of frankness during yesterday’s hearing.

The term “lack of frankness” is that which has a specific meaning in the FBI. It is a disciplinary code – a pair of them, in fact – for which violation agents are often terminated. It sweeps wider than perjury or federal status of false declarations. While these laws require a literally false declaration on a matter of material fact, a lack of deductible may include, as cited above, “failure to be fully frank or the concealment or omission of a fact / information material. ”

This is the standard that the FBI uses for a critical reason: the agents must testify before the courts on all candor. Due to the decision of the Supreme Court Giglio c. UNITED STATESProsecutors must actually disclose the defense lawyers any material that could be used to dismiss a witness, and the interpreter FBI which includes “information on a component witness that includes. . . Any conclusion of misconduct which reflects the veracity or possible bias of the employee, Including a discovery of lack of frankness»(Housedress added).

The result is that an agent who turned out to have responded with a “lack of frankness” becomes useless in the office. It is therefore also a good standard to assess the testimony of a man who would lead an organization that dismisses people for failures of honesty.

Patel failed to respect this standard – miserably and radically and repeatedly.

Again, I am not saying that he was overwhelmed; It depends on the exact wording of specific declarations – and the facts which are not accessible to me concerning precisely what he knew at the time of his testimony. Anyway, I am not brewing myself for blood or patel proceedings.

But there is simply no way to describe his testimony as candid or honest.

To begin with, he has repeatedly distorted his own statements when he faces them. He claimed that they had left their context. He claimed that the senators resulted in his meaning. He claimed that they were only “extracts” of a broader argument that had indicated something else. In some cases, he refused to admit that he said or wrote the articles at all, telling the senators asking him that he did not have the comment before him. I do not know if a specific sentence which he spoke was a lie, but his testimony contained a certain number of definitions of manuals of “false declarations (and) the failure to be fully frank”.

Patel also declared that Trump had authorized 10,000 to 20,000 troops of the National Guard to protect the Capitol, just as he had testified in a legal case in Colorado, in which the judge wrote: “The court concludes that Mr. Patel was not a credible witness. His testimony concerning Trump authorizing 10,000 to 20,000 national guards is not only illogical (because Trump had only the authority on approximately 2,000 national guards) but completely devoid of all proof in the case. »»

Patel testified that he had never promoted the theory of the Qanon conspiracy. Wired Magazine directed this long play in response detailing its history of promotion of the Qanon community.

He said in his testimony that he had never suggested that the FBI had planned or organized on January 6 or that he had only raised questions on the subject. There is a lot of material suggesting that he did more than that. A part is cataloged here. Part of this one, relating to a man by the name of Ray EPPS, is in the own patel book, Government Gangsters, where he describes that there are “all kinds of strange agitators who were at the Capitol on January 6 and sparked the crowd to break the Capitol in advance but which has faced any consequences. EPPS was the most famous, he said, but the FBI will not answer questions to find out if he is a “nourished”. “All signs of concealment are fully exposed,” he writes.

Regarding the so-called choir of January 6, he said he had nothing to do with the recording of the interpretation of the star of the star banner and not knowing anything about the violent criminals that formed the choir. It was a song he promoted and boasted elsewhere to help produce. Do senators really believe that he did not know who he was promoting work?

He suggested that he could not legally speak of his own testimony as a great jury. He is a man who has been a federal prosecutor and public defender for years. Is it really credible that he does not know the terms of the federal rule of criminal procedure 6 (e), which is specifically not Cover witnesses who appear in front of the Grand Jury? This thing is not esoteric. It is a very fundamental criminal procedure of a kind that any federal prosecutor or lawyer for reasonable defense knows.

He said he did not know who Stew Peters is, only to be told that he had been on the man’s podcast for a number of times.

I could continue – and again and again. But my point is not a game of Gotcha, showing that Pate has said one thing, while the facts show another. My point is that there is no way to look at this testimony and see an effort in good faith to “Be fully frank” and to avoid “the concealment or omission of. . . Material facts / information. »»

We can ignore the reality that a point on point after the point has misleaded the committee, and many senators seem determined to do exactly that. But we cannot deny reality.

An FBI agent who gave testimonies like this would be dismissed. Whoever doubts who should remember the report of the Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice on the director of the time, Andrew McCabe. McCabe, the report found (rightly or wrongly), had shown a lack of franchise four times concerning disclosure to the press. McCabe, a long -standing agent of a brilliant career, was dismissed following this conclusion – and nothing more.

In the office, the agents who carry with them a “smell of lie” do not last. The FBI deserves a director who does not arrive with one.

The situation continues tomorrow.