OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Kash Patel Calls Democrats Buffoons After Senate Hearing Clashes

13 sources · updated 2026-09-17
Left 100% Center 0% Right 0%
2 left · 0 center · 0 right

What happened

FBI Director Kash Patel testified on Tuesday, September 15, before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington in an annual oversight hearing that included repeated clashes with Democratic senators. Patel cited FBI figures showing the U.S. murder rate at a 20-year low and the apprehension, during his tenure, of all 10 people on the bureau's most-wanted list. Democrats questioned him about firings of employees who had worked on earlier Trump-related investigations, including the 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago for classified documents, and about reports that fired counterintelligence staffers included specialists in Iranian threats dismissed days before a U.S. military campaign against Iran in February; they also asked about a June internal memo ending some automatic hiring disqualifiers, including acts of bestiality before age 18, about his use of government aircraft, and about a defamation lawsuit he filed against The Atlantic over a story alleging a drinking problem. Patel said the hiring change was meant not to automatically bar trafficking victims, told Sen. Richard Blumenthal that the individuals in question "are not experts" on Iran, declined Sen. Peter Welch's request that he state Joe Biden won the 2020 election because of ongoing investigations, and asked Chairman Chuck Grassley to conclude the hearing. An official FBI account on X posted attacks on several committee Democrats during the session.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 6 articles

4 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Kash Patel denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 4 of 4
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Kash Patel, Sen. Dick Durbin and Senate Judiciary Committee
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 4
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 4
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 4
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
On-record denial 2
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Kash Patel (Mother Jones, Sep 15, 19:59 UTC); Sen. Cory Booker (NBC News, Sep 15, 20:01 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 15, 19:59 UTC by Mother Jones, naming its source.
Not counted 2
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

The partisan split leaves out opposite halves of the same Senate hearing. Right-leaning coverage never describes a question from the dais or a clash with Democrats, so the session does not read as a fight over firings and aircraft. Left-leaning coverage never reports the crime-drop claims Patel made while sitting there, including in the NBC News account of the clashes. A most-wanted arrest and falling violent crime appear in Breitbart, not in left-leaning coverage. Left-leaning coverage opens on personnel purges and on senators in heated exchanges with the director. Right-leaning coverage opens on crime and never once quotes anyone on the committee. Were the crime gains Patel recited produced after the Iran-unit firings Democrats described, or in spite of losing that experienced staff?
Bottom line

A Breitbart reader never hears a Democratic question from Patel's oversight hearing. A left-leaning reader never hears the nearly doubled violent-crime arrests that Republicans used as their defense.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Democrats questioned Patel about firings, hiring-process changes, and use of government aircraft contextin NBC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • President Trump said the FBI has nearly doubled its arrests for violent crime numberin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • At least a dozen fired counterintelligence staffers were from an Iran-threat unit, days before the February military campaign numberin Mother Jones · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Over 1,100 FBI special agents departed in 2025 numberin CBS News · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets framed the hearing as evidence that Patel has subordinated the FBI to presidential retribution rather than independent law enforcement. Mother Jones said he "did little to acknowledge the continuing fallout" from the firings and that his reply to Blumenthal — "If you weaponize law enforcement, you don't get to work at the FBI" — "doesn't actually address the question" of whether those dismissals themselves politicized the bureau; it concluded that "targeting the administration's opponents remains a greater priority for the White House than ensuring the semblance of government function" and that accountability "doesn't seem to interest Patel." NBC News reported Sen. Cory Booker comparing Patel to a "thug" and saying he was using the FBI "to go after reporters" and stonewalling Congress, and Sen. Dick Durbin saying he was "disappointed" the committee "has stood by" since Trump returned to office in January 2025 and looking to a day when it would "hold Director Patel accountable for his leadership." Durbin's broader critique, carried in coverage of the hearing, called Patel the "least qualified and most partisan FBI director in our nation's history" and said the bureau is "expending immense resources to protect President Trump and deliver retribution to his enemies."
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage presented the appearance as a crime-reduction success story. Breitbart highlighted another most-wanted arrest and quoted President Trump saying that "under the Trump administration, the FBI has nearly doubled its arrests for violent crime" and that "the violent criminals are being arrested, and that's why you see the good crime numbers." At the hearing, Grassley said Democrats would criticize Patel "for dreamed up failures" and for firing personnel and "supposedly weakening the agency," but that "the numbers on crime show that you've gotten the job done," citing data that criminal arrests were up 80 percent, violent-crime arrests up 90 percent, and gang and criminal-enterprise arrests up 30 percent over 18 months, along with locating more than 11,000 child victims and arresting over 5,000 child predators. Republican members, NBC reported, "largely praised" Patel and discussed what they described as prior "weaponization," including former special counsel Jack Smith obtaining records of legislators' communications during the investigation of the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack and Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election; Sen. Marsha Blackburn cited a 2021 Merrick Garland memo on threats to school-board officials, and Patel said, "If you participated in that sort of conduct, we removed you."
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that the personnel actions Patel defends as anti-weaponization are themselves a purge of Trump's investigators: Mother Jones's reading of the Blumenthal exchange — that "If you weaponize law enforcement, you don't get to work at the FBI" leaves unanswered whether those dismissals politicized the bureau — is reinforced by Durbin's charge of "retribution" and Booker's claim that the FBI is going "after reporters." The right's strongest argument is outcome-based: Grassley's arrest and child-exploitation figures, together with the murder-rate and most-wanted results Patel cited, are offered, in Breitbart's framing and Trump's "that's why you see the good crime numbers," as the relevant test of whether the FBI is working. The central unresolved tension is whether those public-safety numbers vindicate the overhaul as a fix for prior politicization, or whether they reflect a multi-year, cross-city crime decline that center reporting notes began after a COVID-era spike — leaving unsettled whether "weaponization" describes the earlier Trump investigations or the current firings and redirected probes.

13 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.