To Kash a Troll

FBI Director Kash Patel went to Capitol Hill this week to do battle with Democrats. Here are my takeaways.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Kash Patel’s testimony on Capitol Hill this week provided good examples of what to do and what not to do with a witness like him.

For 14 years, I’ve managed the social media of actor George Takei. As an outspoken liberal and gay icon, George has attracted his share of trolls, so I know a few things about how to deal with them.

I was also a litigator for 12 years, and I deposed many difficult witnesses in that time. One of them was so bellicose that defense counsel had to hire security in case he lunged across the table to physically attack those asking the questions. Another was so evasive, he pretended not to know what a “bank account” was.

Applying my own experience, I watched highlights from the hearings and Patel’s testimony, and I would like to offer some kudos as well as suggestions and pointers in case any Hill staffers are reading this.

One: Never fight a troll under his bridge

Whether on social media or at the witness table, trolls have one goal in mind: to create chaos and make everyone around them as dirty, angry and unbalanced as they are. That’s why you should generally never feed them in the comments section, and when you must engage with them, as in a Congressional hearing, you should avoid descending to their level.

During the hearing, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) correctly classified Patel as just such a creature. “You can make an Internet troll the FBI Director, but he will always be nothing more than an Internet troll,” remarked Schiff.

And as the New York Times correctly observed, Patel “was there to brawl, perhaps to convince Mr. Trump he still had the attributes that endeared him to the president’s inner circle in the first place — that unique hybrid of public defiance and personal compliance demanded of those placed in positions of power.”

Schiff nevertheless allowed Patel to throw punches instead of giving answers. The two even got into an extended shouting match, with Patel firing back that Schiff was “an utter coward,” a “political buffoon” and “the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate.”

Regrettably, this kind of raucous talking over one another only serves to frustrate any quest for the truth or useful admissions by Patel. While it demonstrates that Patel is in fact unhinged, everyone already knew that about him. And it allowed Patel to score points with the only person he cares about besides himself: Donald Trump.

Two: Remember your audience

Trump is vulnerable on the Epstein files because millions of his own voters don’t trust the FBI’s handling of them. They are prone to believe everything’s a cover-up, and on this matter they are very likely correct.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) understood the assignment. He repeatedly made Patel look evasive, like he was hiding the truth. (Swalwell admittedly also got into some unnecessary shouting matches with Patel, but he successfully pulled back and refocused his questioning.)

The MAGA and QAnon crowds know that Patel assigned some 1,000 FBI agents to comb through the Epstein files looking for instances where Trump’s name appears. That has already shaken their trust. It helps explain why the regime scores so low around its handling of the Epstein matter. So it was important to try and pin Patel down on some specifics around this work.

Swalwell did just that by zeroing in on the number of times Trump’s name actually appears—which Patel claimed not to know. Rep. Swalwell then did the “funnel”—starting with a broad question and not letting go until the witness either coughs it up or looks silly.

SWALWELL: It sounds like if you don’t know the number, it could at least be 1,000 times.

PATEL: It’s not.

SWALWELL: Is it at least 500 times?

PATEL: No.

SWALWELL: Is it at least 100 times?

PATEL: No.

SWALWELL: Then what’s the number?

PATEL: I don’t know the number, but it’s not that.

SWALWELL: Do you think it might be your job to know the number?

After which, Patel started to yell and evade the question.

Swalwell also knows that MAGA and QAnon understand that someone told Attorney General Pam Bondi that Trump’s name was in the Epstein files. They want to know who that traitor was. Swalwell’s suspicion that this individual was Patel bore fruit during the questioning, after Patel repeatedly refused to answer a simple question, and [checks notes] even began spelling out the alphabet rather than respond.

Swalwell then cut him off, noting that he would take Patel’s evasiveness as consciousness of guilt—exactly the right move.

This remarkable exchange was clipped and reposted by numerous large social media accounts and has racked up millions of views.

Three: Focus on the witness

Hearings are a unique opportunity to focus the nation’s attention on an important witness. Someone in Patel’s position knows what is being hidden and who is doing the hiding, including perhaps himself.

But hearings are no time to make it about yourself. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) seemed more interested in using choice language to berate Patel for being a lackey of Trump, which pretty much anyone could do, and then got into a pissing match with Patel about who was in charge of the hearing.

Here is that exchange, which I’m afraid didn’t move the needle one bit.

Contrast this to the approach of Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who used his time to bring receipts from right wing media. They comprised clips of Patel from before he became FBI Director. Back then, Patel was calling for full transparency, declaring that the only reason the list was not yet released was because of who was on it, and insisting Epstein’s client list was under “direct control of the Director of the FBI.”

Rep. Raskin knows how to paint a witness into a corner using prior statements. Patel’s only response for why the files have not been released was a lame (and false) claim that there are “multiple court orders” preventing it.

But as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) noted, “In the court’s recent order denying the release of grand jury material, the judge explicitly wrote that the FBI’s investigative materials can be released.”

Despite their shouting match, Sen. Schiff did manage to focus attention on a striking statement Patel made while answering questions from Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA).

Kennedy: Who if anyone did Epstein traffic these young women to, besides himself?

Kash Patel : There is no credible information—none, if there were, I would bring the case yesterday—that he trafficked to other individuals.

But if that were true, why is Ghislaine Maxwell in prison for sex trafficking? What about all the statements by the victims detailing how they were trafficked and the list of people they have compiled who were involved? Schiff pressed Patel on his statement about no other individuals, and Patel backpedaled quickly, contradicting his prior testimony in ways that feel irreconcilable. Here is that back and forth:

Patel’s damning testimony elicited an impassioned response from Epstein’s victims, who said they were shocked by his testimony and deserved answers, including:

• whether the FBI has a plan to conduct a proper investigation,

• whether it would release the FD-302 forms of witness accounts of men to whom Epstein and Maxwell trafficked the girls,

• which officials in previous administrations deemed these reports not credible, and

• why was Patel deferring to those decisions without reading the reports or interviewing the witnesses himself?

In short, because of his testimony, Patel is now in very hot water with the victims, which means he is hot water with those in MAGA and QAnon who have long been their champions, even if they had the absolute wrong assumption of whom the girls had actually been trafficked to.

Four: Get the sound bite.

Every good attorney knows you need a clean snippet for later, whether you are in a court of law or the court of public opinion.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), who is an experienced former prosecutor, got this from Patel not once but twice in short order. He managed to demonstrate that Patel 1) doesn’t really know what the Epstein files and photos show about Trump, and 2) for some reason hasn’t even sought files from the Epstein estate despite his clear authority to do so.

Here are those moments. You’ll see that in each case Lieu doesn’t let Patel’s response go unanswered, and he finishes each snippet as if he’s speaking to a jury of the American public.

Here’s where Rep. Lieu forces Patel to hedge on a simple question of whether Trump is on the Epstein client list:

When Patel denies that there are photos of Trump with girls of an uncertain age, Rep. Lieu points out that Patel doesn’t have and hasn’t seen all the evidence.

When Patel admits that the Epstein estate has a voluminous amount of information that has not been released, Rep. Lieu skewers him for not going after it.

I’m generally pleased with the work of the Democrats—and especially House members who are more used to scuffling with trolls in their daily work—in interrogating and cornering Patel. There are rumors, denied of course by the White House, that Patel may not be in his job much longer, especially now that the regime has placed a “handler” of sorts named Andrew Bailey as co-deputy FBI Director and babysitter alongside Patel’s kindred podcaster troll, Dan Bongino.

Patel may have demonstrated to his audience of one that he is a fighter, but his testimony also revealed him to be a weasel and a phony, as much a part of the “Deep State” problem now as he once railed against, at least as far as MAGA is concerned.

And that could cause Patel to be an increasing liability for the Trump White House.