Transcript of Trump FBI Director Comes Unglued Under Cross Exam at Hearing New

2 more of Donald Trump's top officials crashed under cross-examination during congressional hearings today. First, in the United States Senate, Donald Trump's FBI director Kash Patel completely folded during cross-examination, especially regarding some of the stories that have been written about Kash Patel recently. He became unglued. He started yelling, ranting, and raving like a lunatic. I'll show you what went down there. You're not going to want to miss this. Then separately, in the House of Representatives, Donald Trump's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner demonstrated that he has no clue what his department even does. He didn't have a command or even any understanding of some basic facts about his department. And then he continued to lie and it was just really uncomfortable to watch just how bad he did. So let me show you what went down. This is the Midas Touch Network where we bring receipts. As a reminder, make sure you hit subscribe, help us get to 7 million subscribers. So But first, I want to show you FBI Director Kash Patel blowing up as Senator Van Hollen asked him some very basic questions about the allegations that were reported in The Atlantic. And just look how Kash Patel looks.

He looks unkempt. He's got the kind of button missing from the shirt. It's really ugly. Here, let's play this clip.

As do the men and women of the interagency and state and local law enforcement and the White House.

And so there have been no occasions when your security detail had difficulty waking or locating you, is that right?

Nope. It's a total farce. I don't even know where you get this stuff, but it doesn't make it credible because you say so.

I'm not saying it, Director Patel. It's been written and documented.

You are literally saying it.

No, I'm saying that these are reports, Director Patel.

And unlike— unlike I will say reports, the only person that was slinging margaritas in El Salvador on the taxpayer dollar with a convicted gangbanging rapist was you. You know, the only person that ran up a $7,000 bar tab in Washington, DC, at the Lobby Bar was you. This suggests to me allegations of drinking on taxpayer dime during the day is you.

Director Patel, come on. These are serious allegations that were made against you. They're allegations that you filed.

You drinking margaritas with a gangbanger through and on video. You running a $7,000 bar tab at the Lobby Bar has been filed by your own office. Show during the day. That's you. This is the ultimate example of hypocrisy. Chairman, I will not be tarnished by baseless allegations. Let me ask you a question.

The fact that you mentioned that indicates you don't know what you are talking about. Now, here, directly—

The only thing I know is you're the one drinking margaritas with—

Actually, that's a false statement, and I'm asking you about your statements.

I've answered that.

And I'm asking you about a particular report. And it's not a report. It's— so let me ask you this, um, are you willing to take the, the test that it's called the audit test that members of our active duty military and others take to determine whether they have a drinking problem?

I'll take any test you're willing to take.

I will take it, Director Patel. I'll take it. You ready to take it?

Let's go.

Yes or no?

Let's go side by side.

I'll take it.

All right, more from Senator Van Hollen cross-examining Kash Patel right here. And then Kash Patel starts to lie and attack Senator Van Hollen. You see how insecure, how defensive, how unqualified, frankly, how dumb Kash Patel looks. But you can judge for yourself here. Play this clip.

Have you had a chance to listen to or read about Brian Driscoll's statements about what you said to him and the reasons for him firing?

No, I have not, sir.

Uh, so let me, let me just say this, Mr. Director. Um, in your response to me earlier, where you had a little bit of a blowup, you made a couple provably false statements.

So did you.

No, I— Mr. Director, I was reading about and asking you, and asking you to respond to allegations that are made. In fact, I was giving you an opportunity to do that, and you took that opportunity. But in the process, you made these provably false statements that I know are sort of like urban legend in right-wing media about margaritas in El Salvador, which is provably false. And so, coming from the mouth of an FBI director, to make provably false statements in a hearing like this is extremely troubling. And it, it leads me to ask whether or not the other things you've been saying are false statements. And so my— because that was— that's a provably false statement. You made a couple others that are provably false, and this is from the mouth of the FBI director.

The only one—

final question—

statements is you.

My, my final question to you, Mr. Director, is do you know that it is a crime to lie to Congress? You know that. That's my last question.

I have not lied to Congress.

I didn't ask that.

The Congress is you.

Do you— I'm not testifying here, sir, and I don't lie.

Maybe the next time you run up a $7,000 bar tab, we can talk about it.

Well, see, there you go, lying again.

You suggest the FEC report. I'll post it right there.

You suggested it was public. It wasn't public money, as you know. That was for a 50-member staff party.

So it was a $7,000 bar tab, Mr. Patel.

I'm glad— let me just say in closing, Mr. Chairman, 2 things. I'm glad that you have agreed to take the, the test regarding, you know, whether you have alcohol problems. I'm glad you agreed with me to do that. Um, you still haven't answered my final question. Do you know, Mr. Director, that it is a crime to lie to Congress? Do you know that?

I do not lie to Congress.

I didn't ask you that.

You're insinuating that I am.

I asked you whether you know.

You want to correct your time in this session where you got steamrolled the facts so you can have a Twitter narrative, raise more money and spend more money on $7,000. Just let the record go.

The director of the FBI apparently does not want to answer the question about whether or not it's a crime to lie to Congress, and I find that extremely troubling.

I find it troubling. You lie to the Americans every day.

You, you are a disgrace, Mr. Director.

Nearly as big a fact that you can't answer that question.

More from Senator Van Hollen cross-examining Kash Patel right here regarding allegations that Patel forces FBI officials to undergo polygraph tests about whether they're sources to media outlets like The Atlantic and others, because Patel is very paranoid about these stories about him. Let's play this clip.

You ordered, uh, polygraph tests of members of your team to determine how that story came about?

The FBI conducts polygraph tests all the time.

No, have you—

have you ordered polygraph tests for members of your team to determine who was the source of the stories that I'm asking you about?

I don't order any polygraph tests. There's an internal inspection review process for any and all leaks, especially baseless information, at the FBI that's been in place for the last 30 years. Those processes are followed by career intelligence and agents on the ground.

So I'll take that as a yes since you said that these were, these were unauthorized disclosures. I have another round of questions regarding your firing people who were important to gathering intelligence with respect to Iran, but I'll wait for my second round.

Then Kash Patel says that he was actually working when he was at the Olympics and we saw him, uh, or when he was at, uh, yeah, when he was at the Olympics and we saw him you know, holding a beer and he looked like he was chugging it, you know, which would seem to just destroy any defamation case he has just based on saying I was working and I'm drinking in the locker room. But okay, good for you, Cash. So embarrassing for the FBI. Let's play it.

I just, I have to ask you one last question. Um, you attended, uh, the Olympics, uh, in Milan. Um, how much did your trip cost and To what extent did that help you carry out your mission as director of the FBI? I greatly appreciate the question, Senator. As you know, the FBI and DHS are responsible for the security of the Olympics, the World Cup, the F1, the Super Bowl, and everything else. We had 250,000 Americans travel to Milan. We're proud that we stood up our jock there and had zero major security incidents involving American citizens. And what we did was we purposely planned that trip around the Olympics because, as I mentioned in my opening, The top cyber criminal from the CCP was housed in Italian custody. While there, we were able to work an agreement, an arrangement to have that individual expelled from Italy instead of going back to China, like has so often happened in places like Serbia. And so we accomplished that mission and we kept it quiet. And that individual's return to America 2 weeks ago.

And then finally, more cross-examination here from Senator Van Hollen of Kash Patel. Play this clip.

Director Patel, I've been listening carefully to your responses to some of my colleagues, and I want to start with a question that Senator Coons asked you that relates to this article where the headline is Kash Patel's latest firing— firings ousted agents with expertise in Iran. The article says that these individuals were fired for their role in the classified documents investigations of Donald Trump. First of all, is that true?

Uh, the article, just like all the other articles you cited, is false, and there's ongoing litigation, so I can't address it.

Okay. Did you— you did answer Senator Coons, and I understood your answer to be that the people that were fired, that none of them were part of the, uh, group that had Iran expertise. Is that— is that your answer?

No, he asked if they were Iran experts. I said they were not. Do you—

did the— were the group fired— did it include people who were Iran experts?

No.

Did it include people who were involved in counter-espionage activities with respect to Iran?

I don't have the list in front of me.

So you don't know whether or not you fired people with counter-executive, counter-espionage experience with respect to Iran? You don't know the answer to that question?

I terminated anyone and everyone that weaponized law enforcement.

I, I see. So it was related obviously to the classified documents case.

So that's not what I said.

Before continuing, one quick PSA for the Midas Mighty when it comes to Medicare. Most Medicare agents push Medicare Advantage plans even when they're not right for you because they make more money doing it. That's why we strongly recommend you do what thousands in our audience have already done. Speak with Chapter, please. They don't just share the amazing benefits of Medicare Advantage, they explain the pros and cons of all your Medicare options: Original Medicare, Medicare Supplement, Medicare Advantage, and Part D. Chapter supports you in comparing every plan against your specific healthcare needs because they want to ensure for you have the best coverage for you. One chapter member, Jill, said her advisor presented options she didn't even see on the Medicare.gov website. And in many cases, chapter saves people over $1,100 a year by getting them on the right plan. So if you're on Medicare or will be soon, dial 82-MEDICARE and get honest advice from chapter. That's 82-MEDICARE. It's free and quick. They can review your options in under 20 minutes. If you're on the right plan already, they'll tell you. If you're not, they could help you save thousands the way they have with thousands of members of the Midas Mighty.

Now I wanna quickly shift gears to the House of Representatives where Democratic Congressmember Quigley did a great job here cross-examining Scott Turner because Scott Turner said, look, one of our main priorities here at the Housing and Urban Development Department is we want to make sure that groups that get extra rights have those rights removed. We don't want groups with extra rights. So Congressmember Quigley's like, which groups have extra rights? Who are you referring to? Are you referring to LGBTQ as having extra rights? Watch what Quigley— watch Quigley's cross-examination. Watch Turner's response. Let's play it.

Let me jump on. You said something else there. It's something like equal rights, not extra rights. Can I ask who— what group you're referring to for extra rights?

Equal rights, not extra. When you talk about getting extra rights, when you talk about the Fair Housing Act, it's our job at HUD to uphold and to enforce the Fair Housing Act.

Respectfully, who's getting extra rights?

So you want to go— we want to go after real discrimination and not phantom discrimination.

Who's getting— who's being phantomly discriminated against?

We want to go after real discrimination, sir, not phantom discrimination.

All right, then answer this question. Who's actually being discriminated against?

We're going after real discrimination.

Who?

Okay.

Equal rights according to the Fair Housing Act, not extra rights.

This is why you cut HOPWA because you think—

It's 7 classes. It's 7 classes.

I'm reclaiming my time.

Yes, sir.

I'm going to take a wild guess that you think LGBTQ people are getting extra rights and privileges, which is why you cut HOPWA. Despite the fact that NIH has said that many studies have shown that access to housing is associated with better outcomes. That's why HOPWA, that you cut completely, 90-95% of the people in HOPWA supportive housing are meeting their HIV medication goals. Let— it's well below half for people who are, who are homeless. So you cut housing, HOPWA grants. Is this because you think LGBTQ people are getting extra rights?

Sir, I did not say LGBTQ are getting extra rights.

I'm asking you who you think is getting extra rights.

Our job is to enforce the Fair Housing Act.

You've cut HOPWA, that's a pretty good inference though.

Our job is to have a paradigm shift for all people that are homeless.

Why cut HOPWA?

Our job is to make sure that we're treating people that are homeless, to transform people.

All right, I got that answer. So it's not one particular group. So disproportionately cut in HOPWA, why cut HOPWA?

Sir, we're on a budget. This is a budget. HOPWA is part of the budget. All American people are part of the choices. We're not singling out HOPWA.

You single them out, you just cut them to zero. That's pretty much the definition of singling them out.

We propose it to go to Emergency Solutions Grant, sir.

And then you have some great cross-examination by Congressmember Clyburn. Let's play it.

So if you are mentally ill, in need of housing, then because you have not been treated by the appropriate agency, we're going to render you homeless.

Sir, that's the natural conclusion to your statement. It actually is not. My statement is saying we can't just house people. We have to continue to care for them, to get them killed. Housing them—

we are housing them.

We got to house them first, second, and third. It doesn't just house them if you take all the money away. Housing first— housing first is a failed model, sir. I know slogan there, so I'm not dealing with sloganary here. I'm not either. How do you house people when you take the money away?

Then you have Congresswoman Torres asking some very basic questions to Turner about housing grants for people in California whose homes got burned down in the fires from January 2025 and why those grants haven't been actually, uh, fulfilled yet while the people of California and Altadena and the Palisades are suffering. Let's play this clip.

And I both know how important CDBG-DR grants are for long-term recovery You've been to these sites, as I mentioned. These communities have already been told by the federal government that, yes, it is a disaster and yes, they deserve the help. When, when are we— when is the administration going to submit a package, a disaster package for California?

Well, thank you, ma'am, and thank you for your question. As you have alluded to, I have been there. We visited Altadena and we visited the Palisades, and I had an opportunity to talk with the family members and pastors that lost churches, families that lost schools, and these families do want to rebuild, as you know.

Yes, but when, when is the administration going to submit that request?

Yes, ma'am. Well, as you know, you know, you all are the appropriators of that.

I know, but my question is to you.

Yes, ma'am, I understand.

When is the White House going to do that?

I understand.

If you're not able to answer that question today—

Well, that's okay. I do have just one thing to say is that, you know, a lot of— large in part, the problem, part of the problem, from what I understand in talking to the locals, is with local leadership.

Okay.

And the stewardship of those dollars.

I would like to have an opportunity to discuss with you and your staff at length, since you're not able to give me an answer here today. There shouldn't be any mention of any supplemental like the Iran War, uh, illegal Iran War, without giving California what it needs. California pays $275 billion more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding. Every single program, every agency in this government is subsidized by hardworking Californians that have been injured, no fault of their own, and they deserve a government that is responsive to them in their time of need.

Then you can see right here, Congresswoman DeLauro realizes that HUD Secretary Scott Turner doesn't really know what he's doing, even as he's reading from his notes. Let's play this clip.

Secretary, how many beds of permanent supportive housing are funded by this program?

Well, thank you, uh, Mr. DeLauro. I mean, I need a number because I'm going to run the housing first model, as you said, and as I said before, is indeed a failed model.

With all due respect, we need to change the way we approach homelessness.

You don't know the answer to the question.

The answer to the question is it's roughly 170,000 beds of permanent supportive housing funded by the program. How many permanent supportive housing beds are proposed to be eliminated in the fiscal year 2027 budget request?

Ma'am, I believe that we'll be able to serve more people.

It's going to be 170,000 people.

I believe that we and the mayor are proposing to do CoC.

Do you know how many formerly homeless people could lose their housing under this budget proposal?

What are you saying?

I'm asking you, what do you— what can you tell us? How many formerly homeless people could lose their housing under your budget proposal?

What I can say is that we'll be able to serve more people Okay.

It's estimated to be more than 217,000 people, including children, who currently rely on continuum of care funded housing that would not be continued under this proposal. Mr. Secretary, do you know what is the fastest growing population among people experiencing homelessness is?

Ma'am, what I do know is that we have record funding and we have record homelessness.

Tell me about the fastest growing population among people experiencing homelessness. This is your job to know that.

I'm here to listen. My job is to make sure that we're actually serving the people that are homeless.

Let me just say the answer is 146,000 seniors were experiencing homelessness in the most recent data. As many as 40% of people assisted in permanent supportive housing funded by the Continuum of Care program are older adults who were formerly homeless and now have achieved some stability. Do you know which communities would suffer the most permanent supportive housing losses if, uh, CoC, Continuum of Care, is eliminated?

Well, ma'am, I think a lot of communities are suffering right now under the Housing First model, to be honest.

Well, let me just, let me just answer the question. It is primarily rural and suburban communities where more than 50% of beds are paid for by federal dollars. Let me just tell you, my colleagues might be interested in this. In Oklahoma, 100% of permanent supportive housing beds are paid for by federal funds. 98% in Arizona, 98% in Montana, 82% in Kentucky and Indiana. So, so people can understand the supportive services component of supportive housing. Can you provide some examples of these supportive services?

Well, ma'am, what I can provide is that when I came into HUD, I learned that we had almost 800,000 people that were homeless.

There you have it, folks. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Thanks for watching. Thanks for watching, everybody. Hit subscribe. Thank you. Love this video? Support independent media and unlock exclusive content, ad-free videos, and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.