Kash Patel, the proposed leader of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, delivered a decided disagreement with former President Donald Trump during his validation process last week. Patel stood up against Trump’s decision to commute sentences of individuals involved in the infamous January 6 event, where law enforcement was the undeserved target of violent attacks. Trump surprisingly announced the commutation of 14 sentences and pardoned the others who faced charges connected with the notorious Capital siege on his first day back in the office. At the epicenter of this chaos were ardent supporters of Trump, attempting to derail the certification of the electoral victories of then vice-president Joe Biden, even if it meant resorting to vicious actions against the police.
Patel stated clearly, ‘I do not concur with the lightening of any sentence for any individual who demonstrated violent behavior towards law enforcement.’ This announcement occurred in response to an inquiry regarding the prudence of Trump’s decision to extend ‘universal mercy’ to the defendants from January 6. Despite this divergence, Patel remained otherwise supportive of the president in other matters, adhering significantly to the party lines.
Concerning how the mass commutations following January 6 might impact the safety of the country, Patel reserved judgment, saying he hadn’t reviewed all cases from that eventful day. A recognizable proponent of custodial punishment for those disrupting the peace of enforcement or residential areas, Patel took this opportunity to question past decisions made by then President Joe Biden. Specifically, he criticised Biden’s decision to commute the sentence of Leonard Peltier, convicted for his grave offense of slaying two FBI officers in an altercation in 1975.
Patel further added, ‘The nation will find safety when we can curb our alarming two-year trend of 200,000 drug-related fatalities.’ Clearly highlighting a major issue, Patel diverted focus from the topic at hand into the significant and pressing problem of rampant drug abuse, a failing point for the Biden administration.
In response to a hypothetical scenario, Patel chose not to indicate if he would resign if asked by Trump to breach the law. He sternly stated, ‘In the last 16 years of my government service, I have not done anything unconstitutional or unlawful, and that remains my intention going forward.’ Establishing his respect for the constitution and legality, Patel outlined his moral stance.
He pointed to the precedent set by his predecessors in the position, emphasizing clearly that they signaled their readiness to surrender their positions if they were coerced or told to breach ethical or legal bounds. Thus, despite the apparent loyalty towards Trump, Patel pledges to uphold his role with integrity.
Patel was then asked to answer with a mere ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the controversial subject of whether Trump was ousted from the contest in the 2020 presidential elections. Patel navigated the question, avoiding a precise answer. He decided instead to simply acknowledge the current state of affairs with Biden being the recognized President.
His response was, ‘The election of President Biden was certified. He was sworn into his position and he served as the president of the United States.’ In giving exactly this response, Patel skillfully avoided expressing his opinion on the contentious issue of the 2020 election results.
Although Patel confirmed that Biden’s election had all the required validations, he cleverly refrained from explicitly stating that Trump had lost the election. His evasion of the matter could be seen as a silent signal of support for Trump and the widespread belief among his followers that the 2020 elections were unfairly fought.
The final consensus of vote counts and audits showed that Biden had won the 2020 election. But Patel’s calculated reticence to affirm this directly may suggest his adherence to the doubts cast upon the fairness of the 2020 elections by Trump’s widespread supporter base.