Two more of Donald Trump's top officials crashed under cross-examination duri...
hearings today first in the United States Senate Donald Trump's FBI director Cash Patel
“completely folded during cross-examination, especially regarding some of the stories that”
have been written about Cash 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 mindest touch network where we bring receipts as a reminder.
Make sure you hit subscribe, help us get to 7 million subscribers.
So first I want to show you FBI director Cash 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 Cash Patel looks. He looks unkempt. He's got the kind of button missing from the shirt.
He's really ugly here. Let's play this clip. As do the men and women of the interagency and state local law enforcement in the White House. And so there have been no occasions when your security detail at difficulty waking or locating news.
That right. No if it's a total force. 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 that director Patel, it's been written and documented.
You are literally saying it.
No, I'm saying that these are reports director Patel. I'm like, I'm like, I will say reports. You're right. I was sling in Margaritas and now Salvador on the taxpayer dollar with a convicted gang banging rapist was you.
You know, the young person that ran up a $10,000 bar tab in Washington, D.C. This is a lobbyist. That's amazing. What are you? Then you'll be in an asshole in this room.
How I gave you the drink on the taxpayer dime during a polygraphing. You director Patel, come on. These are serious allegations that were made against you. They're on the gossips are filed. You drink in Margaritas with the gang got you through and on just shows to show you.
I think a $7,000 bar tab at the lobby bar has been filed by your own office goes to show
during the day. That's you. This is an ultimate example of a poker chairman. I will not be tarnished by basis allegations. Let me acknowledge statements from the media.
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 drink of Rugby is with Phil.”
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 retest.
So let me ask you this. Are you willing to take the test that it's called the audit test that members of our act of duty, military, others take to determine whether they have a drinking problem? I'll take any test you're willing to take. I'll take it.
Director Patel, I'll take it. Ready to take it? Let's go. Let's go. Side by side.
I'll take it. All right. More from Senator Van Hollen, cross examining Cash Patel right here. And then Cash Patel starts to lie and attacks Senator Van Hollen. You see how insecure, how defensive, how unqualified, frankly how dumb, Cash Patel looks.
But you can judge for yourself. You're 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 for the firing?”
No, I have not there. So let me just say this, Mr. Director. In your response to me earlier, where you had a little bit of a blow up, you made a couple probably false statements. So did you?
No. Mr. Director, I was reading about and asking you and asking you to respond to allegations that are made. Just 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 Margarita's in El Salvador, which is provably false. And so coming from the mouth of an FBI director to make provably false statements and hearing like this is extremely trouble and it leads me to ask whether or not the other things you be saying are false statements.
And so my -- because that's a provably false statement. You made a couple of those that are provably false.
This is from the mouth of the FBI director.
The only way of the false statements is you -- 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 you that. I lied to Congress, is you?
You? I'm not testifying here, sir, and I don't why. Maybe the next time you run up a $7,000 bar tab, we can talk about that. Well, see, there you go. Well, line again.
You suggest -- And the FBC report. I was interested, right? You suggested it was public. It wasn't public money, is you know.
That was for 50 members. Oh, half part. So, it wasn't $7,000 bar tab. Mr. -- I'm glad -- let me just say and close you, Mr. Chairman.
Two things. I'm glad that you have agreed to take the test regarding, you know, whether you have alcohol problems and glad you agreed with me to do that. 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 just want whether you know --
You want to correct your time in this session, where you got steam rolled by the facts, so you can have a Twitter narrative. Discharge your rights. It's more money and spend more money on $7,000. Just let the --
I'm not always interested in you.
Director, 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. I find it troubling.
I find it troubling. You are a disgrace, Mr. Director. I have really the fact that you can answer that question. More from Senator Van Hollen, Cross Examining, Cash, Patel, right here, regarding allegations that Patel forces FBI officials to undergo polygraph tests about whether they are 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 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 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 a basis 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 unauthorized disclosures. I have another round of question regarding your firing people who were important to
in gathering intelligence with respect to Iran, but I'll wait for my second round.
Then Cash Patel says that he was actually working when he was at the Olympics and we saw him or when he was at, when he was at the Olympics and we saw him holding a beer and he looked like he was chugging it, 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.
That's so embarrassing for the FBI. Let's play it. I have to ask you one last question. You attended the Olympics in Milan, 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, the HS are responsible for the security of the Olympics, the World Cup, the F1, the Super Bowl, and everything else. We had 250,000 Americans traveled in Milan, we're proud that we stood up our job there and had zero major security incidents in the ball in American citizens. And what we did was we purposely planned that trip around the Olympics because as I mentioned
my opening, the top cyber criminal from the CCP was housed in Italian custody with a while there we were able to work in agreement and arrangements 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 individuals return to America two weeks ago.
And then finally more cross-examination here from Senator Van Hollen of Cash, Patel, play
this clip. Senator Patel, I've been listening carefully to your responses to some of my colleagues. And I want to start with a question that Senator Koons asked you that relates to this article where the headline is, Cash Patel's latest firing, firing's 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. The article is just like all the other articles you cited as false and there's ongoing litigation so I can't address it. Okay.
You did answer Senator Koons and I understood your answer to be that the people that were fired
Did none of them were part of the group that had Iran expertise.
Is that your answer?
No, he asked if they were on experts, I said they were not.
You did the group fire that include people who were Iran experts. No, that include people who were involved in counter-espinage 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-espinage
experience with respect to Iran. You don't know the answer to that question. I terminated anyone at everyone that weaponized law enforcement. I see, so it was related obviously to the last five 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.”
Make a 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 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 can help you save thousands the way they have with thousands of members
of the mightest mighty. Now I want to quickly shift gears to the House of Representatives where Democratic Congress member quickly, a great job here across 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 Congress member quickly is like, which groups have extra rights?”
Who do you referring to? You're referring to LGBTQ as having extra rights? Watch what quickly, uh, watch quickly across 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? Who are you talking 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, respectively, who's getting extra rights, so we want to go, we want
to go after real discrimination and not phantom discriminating, who's getting phantomly discriminated against? We want to grab the real discrimination, sir, not phantom discriminating. I can answer this question, who's actually being discriminated against? We're going after real discrimination.
Who? Okay. Does that go right? I guess that's what it is. This is why not extra right.
This is why not extra right? Because you think it's extra right. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You know what I mean?
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 the access to housing is associated with better outcomes.
“That's why Hopwa, that you cut completely, 95% of the people in Hopwa, supported by housing,”
are meeting their HIV medication goals. It's well below half for people who are homeless. So you cut housing, Hopwa grants. Is this because you think LGBTQ people are getting extra rights? Sorry, I did not say LGBTQ or getting extra money.
I'm asking you who you think is getting extra right. My job is it because the fair has a pretty good inference. Our job is to have a paradigm shift for all people that are homeless. Why cut? My job is to make sure that we're treating people that are homeless, to transfer them
people. So let's see if it's a good idea. So this proportionally cut in Hopwa, why cut Hopwa? Sir, we're on the budget. This is a budget.
Hopwa is part of the budget.
All American people are part of the budget.
We're not seeing well enough Hopwa.
You single them out, you just cut them to zero. That's pretty much the definition of single in a mile. We propose that to go to emergency solutions grants, sir. And then you have some great cross-examination by Congress member Clyburn. Let's play it.
So if you are mentally ill in need of housing, then because you have not been treated by appropriate agency, we go run the U homeless. That's the natural conclusion to your step. 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.
We are housing. We are housing firm.
We got a housing 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 don't slogan there. So I'm not dealing with slogan there, dear.
I'm not even trying to figure out how many people when you took the money away. When you have Congress, women, Torres asking some very basic questions to turn her about housing grants for people in California whose homes got burned down in the fires from Trejani, where we 2025 and why those grants haven't been actually fulfilled yet while the people of California and Altidina and the Palisades are suffering.
Let's play this clip. But I both know how important CDBGDR 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 is the administration going to submit a package, a disaster package for California?”
Well, thank you, Mayor, and thank you for your question, as you have alluded to. I have been there. We visited Altidina 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 is the administration going to submit that request? Well, as you know, you all are the appropriators of that. I know, but my question is to you when is the White House going to do that? I understand. If you're not able to answer that question, please.
Well, that's okay. I do have just one thing to say is that a lot of large and part of the problem, part of the problem from what I understand and talking to the locals is with local leadership. Okay. And the story should have the likes of an opportunity to discuss with you and your staff at
length since you are not able to give me an answer here today. There shouldn't be any mention of any supplemental like the Iran war 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 Deloro 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 support of housing are funded by this program?”
Well, thank you. Deloro. I really don't. Because I'm going to know, the house and first model, as you see it, and as I say before, is it still due to the effect of failed model?
With all due respect, we need to change the way we approach the question. The answer to the question is, it's roughly 170,000 beds of permanent support of housing funded by the program. How many permanent support of housing beds are proposed to be eliminated in the fiscal year 2020 seven budget requests?
Now, I believe that we'll be able to serve more people. It's going to be a budget that we 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 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 continuing to have 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?
It is.
“Man, what I do know is that we have record funding, and we have funding.”
Tell me about the fastest growing population among people experiencing homelessness. You're a job to know. You're going to listen, my job is to make sure that we're actually serving the people that our homeless members.
The answer is 146,000 seniors were experiencing homelessness in the most recent data.
As many of 40% of people assisted in permanent support of housing funded by the continuing care program, older adults who are formerly homeless and now have achieved some stability. You know, which communities would suffer the most permanent support of housing losses if COC, continuing to care is eliminated?
“Well, man, I think a lot of communities are suffering right now under the housing first model”
to be honest.
Well, 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 support of housing beds are paid for by federal funds, 98% in Arizona, 98% in Montana, 82% in Kentucky and Indiana.
So people can understand the support of services component of supportive housing.
“Can you provide some examples of these supportive services?”
Well, man, what I can provide is that when I came in the hood, 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.
