President Donald Trump’s nominee for FBI Director Kash Patel eased through Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Thursday. In contrast, the nominee for Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had a far harder time before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
This was always the most likely outcome.
Patel has a vein of Republican sympathy in that many GOP primary voters believe the FBI is in desperate need of new leadership and aggressive reform. Trump shares this belief at a very personal level after numerous failed attempts on his life, one of which was almost successful. In turn, there are few incentives for Republicans to move against the former Justice Department attorney over his more fringe viewpoints on matters such as QAnon. They do not want to be attacked from the MAGA right or to alienate Trump early in his second term.
Still, Patel’s performance was impressive. While Democrats offered scathing criticisms on controversies such as his fundraising in relation to the Jan 6 Capitol riot, Patel garnered strong support from Republicans and effectively sidestepped Democratic attacks. For example, Patel is seen by Republicans as a reliable ally in support of counter-terrorism legal authorities and efforts to go after organised crime and street gangs. He emphasised these points, knowing that they would lend him both cover from Republican sceptics such as former Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. He also offered clear support for FISA 702 authorities which allow the government to intercept communications between Americans and suspected terrorists or spies abroad without a warrant. This was well captured in a good soundbite: “Let’s let our men and women in law enforcement kick down the doors of terrorists, narco traffickers, and paedophiles, and put those people in prison where they belong,” Patel said.
Gabbard faced a far more challenging hearing. While her military credentials reference a patriotic character, something Senate Intelligence Chairman Sen. Tom Cotton was keen to emphasise, Gabbard’s answers seemed stiff and at times generalised to avoid controversy and appease senators. Her newly found support for FISA 702 warrants, which allow the government to intercept communications between Americans and suspected terrorists or spies abroad, didn’t seem to convince senators. And her vague answers disappointed otherwise sympathetic senators when they raised more complicated questions. This was a problem when Gabbard was asked by Sen. Roger Wicker about so-called “Anomalous Health Incidents” or “Havana Syndrome,” for example. Gabbard responded by suggesting there was little new intelligence reporting on the topic. This is inaccurate and Wicker was visibly frustrated by her answer.
Even more problematic was Gabbard’s defence of her prior rejection of intelligence assessments that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people. Gabbard claimed she had done so because she feared the assessments were being used to lead America into another Middle Eastern war. The problem with this excuse is that it fits perfectly with the narrative that was being proffered by Russia in relation to that chemical attack. And the problem with that synergy is that Gabbard has repeatedly shown a tendency to trust the propaganda of foreign adversaries over evidence-based assessments from the US intelligence community. Most challenging for Gabbard’s prospects is the sense of the Senate that she might manipulate intelligence to serve her policy agenda or discount intelligence reporting that conflicted with her policy views.
So while Kash Patel’s confirmation looks all but secure, Gabbard faces a much harder task.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeRemember leaders like Trump don’t really want smart people in key posts. It’s what Oligarchs do – make sure the chance of insurgency against one minimised by appointing the less able.
Works until you really need them to be good at their jobs. Look what happened to Putin when his underlings actually had to fight a war. The classic error in recruitment.
Remember leaders like Trump don’t really want smart people in key posts.
This lot may not be optimal – but they are light years better than the shabby crew of 40-watt midwits that your dear leader has inflicted on us. This has to be the weakest front bench in the Labour Party’s history.
You are mixing up elected politicians with the Dept appointees with no accountability to an electorate that characterises many of the posts being decided upon in the US. The US ‘norm’ has been to ensure the best-able get these posts which is why they aren’t elected posts. What would be your equivalent appointee in the UK system? Do you even know any of the posts or names?
The clown show continues.
So far we have a Secretary of Defense who was too hungover to show up at his scheduled press conference today, hours after a high fatality incident involving a military helicopter, a Transport Secretary who feels the need to remind us that aircraft flying into each other is sub-optimal, and a very clearly senile president who rants about everything being the fault of diversity hires like some drunk uncle at Thanksgiving. The less said about today’s choice of makeup the better I think.
Now they want to add this poisonous little dwarf. the obviously insane Gabbard and the pitifully ignorant Kennedy to the line up of sex offenders, drunks, incompetents and embittered losers?
This is the best and brightest America has to offer?
This bunch aren’t perfect for sure. But they have far more original thought, supported by the majority of Americans, than the previous self righteous, self serving administration.
Likewise, Donald Trump is, no doubt, well past his cognitive best, but compared the incumbent of the last 4 years, he’s completely lucid. Where were your concerns regarding Dementia Joe? Or are you bigging up Diversity Harris?
Still bitter then
CS projects his own neurotic inadequacies upon whomever he’s told by his political allegiances to hate. In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
Cun*t.
Absolutely light years ahead of the vandals under the demented Biden administration
This sounds like a hit piece on Tulsa!
Yes, to be fair, I’ve read that the Tulsa Art Deco Museum is worth seeing if you’re in that part of Oklahoma.
“she might manipulate intelligence to serve her policy agenda or discount intelligence reporting that conflicted with her policy views.”
This is new?
This simply sounds to me that she carefully considers all available information before beginning to form an opinion, that is subject to shift, as newer information becomes available, all with a healthy skepticism of the gospels from the “US intelligence community.” That skepticism is *well* warranted, welcome, and absolutely necessary.
The people who don’t want Tulsi Gabbard most likely don’t like the light being shone on their shenanigans.
Still, it’s a good thing to have someone at the helm who has directly experienced the horror of frontline combat in contrast to the Hillary Clintons of this world who think there’s something sexy about it.
The chemical attacks reported from a bed sitter in Coventry, and the neutral White Helmets, and refuted by many in the OCSE.
I am curious if Mr. Rogan and I were watching the same hearing. But, this is not a fact forum but an opinion one,However, there does seem to be some underlying bias, not about competence, but philosophy. Gabbard basically called out the Dems in 2020 on issues that affect American security, freedom of speech, and the vapid candidates running in the Primaries. She destroyed Harris, which shows me she has character and principles and will be a disruptor, which is exactly what we need. She may not be as polished and smooth as some other nominees but the Repubs need to give her a chance. Trump will weigh in and it will be interesting.
She probably has made mistakes in the past but they are related to her dislike of the deep state and her determination to tackle it. However, the deep state’s intense dislike of Gabbard and political influence in Congress might be sufficient to block her. Which is a pity as she would have been a positive addition to his Cabinet.
Oh boy….