Kash Patel denies excessive drinking allegations as ‘total farce’ in Senate hearing
FBI director also dismisses allegations of unexplained absences as Democrats challenge him over Atlantic report
Embattled FBI director Kash Patel has denied under oath recent allegations of excessive drinking and unexplained absences on the job, dismissing them as “baseless” during a fiery congressional hearing.
Democrats challenged him over the “extremely alarming” reports, first reported in the Atlantic mid-April, which they argued would a mount to a “gross dereliction” of duty. The FBI director has sued the magazine, and the author of a story it published, filing a defamation lawsuit in US district court for the District of Columbia that seeks $250m in damages.
When you look at democrats challenged him over the “extremely alarming” reports, first reported in the Atlantic mid-April, which they argued would a mount to a “gross dereliction” of duty, the implications are hard to ignore.
Reading that fBI director also dismisses allegations of unexplained absences as Democrats challenge him over Atlantic — hard to argue with the logic there.
Basically fBI director also dismisses allegations of unexplained absences as Democrats challenge him over Atlantic. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
Kash Patel is in a tough spot here, curious how they navigate it.
So the bottom line is fBI director also dismisses allegations of unexplained absences as Democrats challenge him over Atlantic. Wonder how this will land.
Kash Patel has been vocal about this, good to see them staying on it.
The bigger issue here is democrats challenged him over the “extremely alarming” reports, first reported in the Atlantic mid-April, which they argued would a mount to a “gross dereliction” of duty. That changes the calculation.
In other words fBI director also dismisses allegations of unexplained absences as Democrats challenge him over Atlantic. Curious to see how this develops.
FBI director also dismisses allegations of unexplained absences as Democrats challenge him over Atlantic. Meanwhile democrats challenged him over the “extremely alarming” reports, first reported in the Atlantic mid-April, which they argued would a mount to a “gross dereliction” of duty.
Reading that democrats challenged him over the “extremely alarming” reports, first reported in the Atlantic mid-April, which they argued would a mount to a “gross dereliction” of duty — hard to argue with the logic there.
On one hand democrats challenged him over the “extremely alarming” reports, first reported in the Atlantic mid-April, which they argued would a mount to a “gross dereliction” of duty. But at the same time fBI director also dismisses allegations of unexplained absences as Democrats challenge him over Atlantic.
If democrats challenged him over the “extremely alarming” reports, first reported in the Atlantic mid-April, which they argued would a mount to a “gross dereliction” of duty, then the bigger picture starts to look very different.
What stands out is fBI director also dismisses allegations of unexplained absences as Democrats challenge him over Atlantic. That is the part worth paying attention to.
The fact that fBI director also dismisses allegations of unexplained absences as Democrats challenge him over Atlantic really puts things into perspective.
Think about it: democrats challenged him over the “extremely alarming” reports, first reported in the Atlantic mid-April, which they argued would a mount to a “gross dereliction” of duty. That speaks volumes.