There are very simple rules in politics. insider and outsider They want to come in and mess with your stuff, but you don't like that.
So you can see why the deep state of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is so hostile to Kash Patel, who was nominated by President-elect Trump on December 2nd to be the venerable but controversial director of the FBI. (On Dec. 11, current board member Christopher Wray announced his resignation. Trump, who had intended to fire Wray after he takes office next month, called it “a great day for America.”)
Patel said he intends to release some or all of the FBI's files on everything. “Russia, Russia, Russia” From Jeffrey Epstein to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. “The most important thing is [goal],” Patel say“It's about restoring trust in our agencies and departments. . . . The way we do that is by telling the American people the truth.”
The mainstream media will be happy to hear this, right? After all, reporters always say, “We must speak truth to power.” Because, of course, “democracy dies in darkness.” Certainly MSM is looking forward to a new era of passion, Bringing secrets to light. I mean, journalists want to see Patel on FBI as soon as possible for their own headlines, clicks, and prize money, right?
Well, not completely. In fact, the MSM's reaction to Patel was completely toxic. single MSM publication; atlantic oceancan speak for the whole. There's a scribe there called Patel: 'Dangerous', another called He is “incredibly dangerous.” Third Wordsmith gave an opinion“We are headed for a constitutional crisis far greater than Watergate.”
Yay! In 1972, the Watergate scandal disrupted Richard Nixon's presidential term, leading to his resignation two years later. It was an epic story that gripped the nation. 2 investigative journalists, washington post Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have become household names as well as best-selling authors.
In fact, the impact of Watergate was so great that ambitious politicians began looking for other scandals to unravel. Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, was one of them. Noting all the allegations and revelations about the US intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, the church persuaded the Senate to establish a special agency, soon to be known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. church committeeStart digging.
Throughout 1975 and 1976, the commission issued subpoenas and grilled witnesses, bathed in publicity and the warm light of national television.
Certainly, the media agreed as well. newsweek He hailed the church as a “Frankish cathedral.” washington star He spoke well of Church and praised his “seriousness.” The paper continued: “His committees were among the most thorough in memory, and he spoke with furrowed brows and half-closed eyes about his determination not to rush to judgment on major issues. “I'm talking about it,” he added.
Sen. Frank Church (D-ID), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, speaks to reporters on July 10, 1975. (Bettman, via Getty Images)
The truth, of course, is that church committees regularly leak scoops — from CIA assassination plots to the FBI snooping on Martin Luther King Jr. — to their favorite outlets, especially CBS News and CBS News. That means he was doing it. new york times. As for Church himself, he is well aware of his increased media attention, embellishing the media with colloquial terms like “rogue elephant” and “glorious godfather” and portraying the president and his minions as anti-democratic. It was criticized as “Caesarism.''
The press loved it. why? Because Church was attacking a common enemy, the establishment. At the time, large institutions, including national security agencies, were at least to some degree conservative and almost always anti-communist. Sure, there were a lot of Democrats in high positions, but they weren't new members from the hippy 60s or the radical 70s.
In fact, an important part of early Cold War law, Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952The movement, aimed at eliminating subversives and communists, was sponsored and led by Democrats, particularly Sen. Pat McCarran of Nevada and Rep. Francis Walter of Pennsylvania.
But Church was a new type of Democrat, a George McGovern type. He himself will enjoy it later. swimming and spearfishing Fidel Castro, the communist dictator of Cuba. Church therefore took pleasure in burning down the system, trying to dissolve it into something more flexible and liberal.
Sen. Frank Church (D-ID) (right) speaks with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the senator's visit to Cuba in 1977. (Bettman, via Getty Images)
Church committee page 989 final report This led to structural changes such as purges within the national security apparatus and the creation of a new court as part of the 1978 Tribunal. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
These and other pressures in the 1970s pushed the establishment further and further to the left, first toward McGovernism and then full-fledged Wokism. It is no coincidence that those same agencies and the FISA court were at the center of Russiagate targeting Trump.
But back in 1976, the media's hero treatment inspired Church to run for president. It turned out to be a bridge too far. Jimmy Carter won the Democratic nomination that year. And Church himself lost re-election in 1980 because he realized that Idahoans were spending more time thinking about the Potomac River than Pocatello. (Interestingly, Gem State (They haven't elected a Democrat to the Senate since Church.)
Sen. Frank Church (D-ID) is greeted by supporters of his presidential campaign in Portland, Oregon, March 18, 1976. (Bettman via Getty Images)
But the Church Committee will live forever in the liberal pantheon. For progressives, it's the gold standard for Capitol Hill diggers.
So whenever Republicans in Congress want to investigate something, the MSM aligned with Democrats tells them not to even do that. think About comparing yourself to Church and his work. In 2023, when House Republicans led by Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan began investigating the Biden administration's misdeeds (starting with the FBI's handling of Hunter Biden's laptop), washington post Any comparisons were immediately discontinued. heading: “The Church Committee was nothing like the new Republican investigation.” Did you understand? nothing similar.
Now, of course, both the left and the right have switched attitudes toward the system. Currently, liberals and Democrats are on the inside, and conservatives and Republicans are on the outside. (Yes, Trump has won the White House twice so far, but the establishment very Just as the deep state is established, very deep. )
So, naturally, Democrats want to defend the FBI. Because it's now their institution. J. Michael Waller's 2024 book, Big Intel: How the CIA and FBI went from Cold War heroes to deep state villainsdetails how the FBI, specifically its headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue, was transformed and awakened.
Now, let's get back to Kash Patel. He says he wants to shut down FBI headquarters and “reopen it the next day as a museum of the Deep State.”
Such harsh talk ensures a lot of opposition to Patel. All Senate Democrats will oppose his confirmation. And Republicans who never play Trump are voicing strong opposition from the sidelines. For example, John Bolton compare Patel addressed Lavrenty Beria, the Soviet-era head of the secret police. Mr. Bolton continued the fight in a Dec. 11 op-ed. wall street journal, with headings“Kash Patel is not part of the FBI.”
Former Defense Department Chief of Staff Kash Patel speaks at a campaign rally in Minden, Nevada, on October 8, 2022. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Patel returns it quickly. he has published The list of “government gangsters” included, yes, the same John Bolton.
Patel certainly has many allies. Stephen Miller, a close aide to President Trump, is one of them. Those who say it outright:
When radical leftists say “our democracy,” they mean “our unelected deep state.” When they say “FBI independence,” they mean “unchecked law enforcement power exempt from all democratic accountability.” In other words, what they are against is the restoration of democracy and autonomy.
So what happens next? In this polarized environment, no one has a comfortable path to Senate confirmation. Even so, polymarket determine the probability in support of Patel 2:1 or more.
At the very least, his Senate hearings will be a circus, since a key goal for establishment insiders is to keep outsiders out of their citadels.
It should come as no surprise that deep statists and Democrats are so strongly opposed to Patel. Still, it's jarring to see reporters and experts lining up to protect the mud and avoid being scraped up.
