Trump SCREAMS as Kash Patel ADMITS Horrific CRIMES 

The Justice Department’s watchdog just releasing this bombshell report saying that Trump’s DOJ, Donald Trump’s DOJ, improperly subpoenaed phone records and emails of two members of Congress and their uh 43 staff members in 2017. We should note both Republicans and Democrats as well as several reporters swept up in this.

 One of those staffers is Trump’s own pick to run the FBI, Cash Patel, when he was a staffer on the House Intel Committee. Uh the subpoenas are related to alleged leaks of classified information to the media, including CNN during congressional investigations into what was called Crossfire Hurricane. You remember that is the code name of the FBI’s investigation into connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

 I want to go straight to Evan Perez. Okay, so Cash Patel is facing absolutely devastating allegations in federal lawsuits from fired FBI agents. And I mean devastating. We’re talking about sworn complaints claiming Patel admitted in private conversations that he fired agents for political reasons. That he acknowledged the firings were likely illegal, but did them anyway under White House pressure.

 That he purged the FBI of people who investigated Trump because the FBI tried to put the president in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it. Are you kidding me right now? Now, let me be very clear up front. Patel has not publicly confessed to crimes on TV. There’s no press conference where he admitted wrongdoing. But what we have is potentially even more damaging.

 Sworn allegations and federal lawsuits from multiple former FBI officials claiming Patel told them directly that he was carrying out politically motivated, knowingly unlawful retaliation. These are under oath statements from FBI agents who say Patel admitted to them, “I’m firing you because you worked on Trump cases.

 I know this is probably illegal, but my job security depends on getting rid of agents who investigated the president. This is wild. This is absolutely wild. And this isn’t just one disgruntled employee making accusations. We’re talking about multiple lawsuits, three senior FBI officials in one case, 12 agents who knelt during George Floyd protests in another, all claiming Patel admitted to political purges, and separately. This is critical.

 Patel has already been forced to testify under immunity before a federal grand jury in the Mara Lago classified documents case. He initially took the fifth amendment, refusing to answer questions, but prosecutors gave him immunity, which removed his ability to stay silent and forced him to testify about Trump’s handling of classified material.

 Come on. When prosecutors give someone immunity and force them to testify, it’s because that person has information that could incriminate others. In this case, Trump. So, we’ve got Patel allegedly admitting to illegal firings in conversations with FBI agents, and we’ve got sealed grand jury testimony where Patel was compelled to answer questions about Trump’s classified documents under immunity.

Both of those things are extremely dangerous for Trump because they suggest his handpicked FBI director was carrying out illegal political purges and has given prosecutors testimony that could undermine Trump’s defenses in the documents case. Let me break down exactly what these lawsuits allege and why Patel’s testimony is so damaging.

All right, so let’s start with the FBI firings lawsuits because the allegations here are specific and detailed. Three senior FBI officials filed a federal lawsuit claiming they were illegally fired for political reasons and their sworn complaint quotes Patel as telling one of them that he had to terminate agents involved in Trump related cases because his job security relied on the dismissal of the agents involved in cases related to the president.

 Think about what that means. Patel allegedly admitted his job security, his ability to keep being FBI director, depended on firing agents who had investigated Trump. That’s admitting political retaliation. That’s saying, “I’m not firing you because you did anything wrong. I’m firing you because the president wants revenge.

” And it gets worse. The complaint says Patel acknowledged that firing agents for their work on Trump cases was likely illegal. Likely illegal. Those are allegedly Patel’s own words. But Patel said he was under orders from superiors tied to the White House. That he felt he had no choice if he wanted to keep his position.

 Are you kidding me right now? So if these allegations are true, Patel knew what he was doing was illegal. Said it out loud to the people he was firing, but did it anyway because the White House wanted it done and his job depended on it. That’s not just political retaliation. That’s knowing violation of federal law. That’s abuse of office.

 That’s exactly the kind of corruption that can lead to criminal charges. And there’s another lawsuit from 12 agents who were fired after kneeling during a 2020 George Floydprotest. These agents participated in or showed support for protests against police brutality. And according to their lawsuit, Patel purged them because their actions were seen as not aligned with President Trump.

 Even though internal reviews found no Hatch Act violation, meaning the agents didn’t actually break any rules about political activity, Patel allegedly fired them anyway because Trump didn’t like it. Come on. You can’t fire federal employees for exercising their First Amendment rights to participate in protests. That’s unconstitutional.

 That’s exactly what civil service protections are designed to prevent. But according to these lawsuits, Patel did it anyway and allegedly admitted it was about politics, not performance or rule violations. Now, if judges or juries credit these sworn accounts, if they believe what the fired agents are saying Patel told them, that amounts to Patel effectively admitting he carried out politically driven, knowingly unlawful retaliation inside the FBI that supports claims of civil rights violations, unlawful employment practices, and abuse

of power. All things that can lead to both civil liability and potentially criminal charges. And here’s why this is so dangerous for Trump. It paints a picture of the FBI being run as a loyalty purge operation. Firing people for investigating Trump. Firing people for symbolic protests Trump didn’t like. All while Patel admits he’s doing it to protect himself and appease the White House.

 That completely undercuts Trump’s claim that he’s fighting against weaponization of the FBI. Because what these lawsuits suggest is that Trump’s team weaponized the FBI for political revenge. Trump constantly claims the FBI was weaponized against him. But if Patel was purging agents who investigated Trump, firing people for political reasons, and doing things he admitted were likely illegal, then Trump weaponized the FBI against his critics.

Now, let’s talk about Patel’s grand jury testimony because this is potentially even more devastating for Trump. In the Mara Lago classified documents case, prosecutors wanted to question Patel about Trump’s handling of classified material. Patel initially invoked the Fifth Amendment. He refused to answer questions because he was worried about incriminating himself.

 That alone is significant. You don’t take the fifth if you have nothing to hide. Patel taking the fifth suggests he believed his answers could expose him to criminal liability. But prosecutors weren’t satisfied with that. So they offered Patel limited immunity. That means we won’t use your testimony to prosecute you directly, but you have to answer our questions and we can use what you say to prosecute other people like Trump.

With immunity, Patel couldn’t refuse to testify. He had to answer questions before the grand jury, and whatever he said in that sealed testimony is now part of the prosecution’s evidence. We don’t know exactly what Patel said. Grand jury testimony is secret, but legal experts emphasize that prosecutors don’t fight for immunity deals unless the testimony is crucial to their case.

And the most likely scenario is that Patel contradicted Trump’s story about declassification. Trump keeps claiming he declassified everything, that he had total authority to take any documents he wanted, that everything was done properly. But if Patel testified that Trump knew he hadn’t declassified documents, or that staff were worried Trump’s story was false, or that there were concerns about how classified material was being handled, that’s devastating to Trump’s defense because it would be coming from Trump’s own

loyalist, from someone who was Trump’s representative at the National Security Council and Pentagon, someone Trump trusted completely. If Patel’s testimony contradicts Trump’s claims, prosecutors can use that against Trump. Even though Patel himself is protected by immunity, his words can be used to prove Trump committed crimes. This is wild.

 This is absolutely wild. Okay, so let’s talk about why these alleged admissions and the grand jury testimony are so dangerous for both Patel and Trump going forward. Because even without public confessions, this creates serious legal exposure. First, the FBI firings lawsuits create a detailed record of alleged political retaliation.

 If judges allow these cases to proceed, and they are proceeding, then Discovery will force Patel to produce documents, emails, and communications about the firings. And if those documents back up what the fired agents are claiming, if there are emails showing Patel discussing political motivations, or memos about White House pressure, or communications proving he knew the firings were illegal, that becomes evidence.

 Evidence that can be used in civil trials to award damages. Evidence that can be used by congressional investigators. Evidence that can potentially support criminal charges for abuse of office and civil rights violations. Second, Patel allegedlyadmitting the firings were likely illegal is devastating because it shows knowledge.

 It’s one thing to make a mistake. It’s another to know something is illegal and do it anyway. If Patel really did say the firings were likely illegal, that’s proof of intent. That’s proof he knowingly violated the law. that makes any future prosecution much easier. Third, the pattern across multiple lawsuits strengthens each individual case.

 It’s not just one agent claiming political retaliation. It’s multiple groups of agents in separate lawsuits, all describing similar behavior from Patel. That pattern makes the allegations more credible. It’s harder to dismiss as one disgruntled employee when you have 15 or more former agents making similar claims. Fourth, Patel’s grand jury testimony under immunity is a ticking time bomb for Trump.

 Whatever Patel said is locked in the record. If it contradicts Trump’s defenses, prosecutors can use it at trial, and Patel can’t change his story now. He testified under oath. If he tries to say something different later, prosecutors can impeach him with his own grand jury testimony. So, Trump is stuck with whatever Patel told the grand jury, and based on the fact that prosecutors fought for that testimony, it’s likely very damaging to Trump.

 Fifth, all of this creates potential criminal exposure for Patel himself down the line. Yes, he has immunity for the grand jury testimony, but that doesn’t cover the FBI firings. If prosecutors conclude Patel committed crimes by purging the FBI for political reasons, they can charge him. The immunity from the documents case doesn’t protect him from charges related to the firings.

 So, Patel faces potential civil liability from the lawsuits and potential criminal charges if prosecutors decide to pursue the retaliation allegations. And if Patel gets charged, his incentive to cooperate against Trump increases dramatically. He might decide testifying against Trump is his best path to avoiding prison.

 So what happens next? The FBI firings. Lawsuits continue through discovery and potentially to trial. Documents get produced. Depositions happen. More evidence comes out about what Patel said and did. The grand jury testimony remains sealed for now, but if Trump’s documents case ever goes to trial, that testimony becomes evidence.

 Prosecutors can use it to contradict Trump’s claims and prove he knew he was violating the law. And if Democrats win in 2026, congressional investigations into the FBI purges become a priority. Committees can subpoena Patel, review the same evidence from the lawsuits, and potentially make criminal referrals. All of it creates this web of legal jeopardy around both Patel and Trump, the alleged admissions, the grand jury testimony, the ongoing lawsuits, the potential congressional investigations.

 Patel thought he was protecting Trump by purging the FBI of agents who investigated him. But instead, he’s created evidence that can be used against both of them. And Trump thought having a loyalist as FBI director would shield him. But if that loyalist has given damaging testimony under immunity and allegedly admitted to illegal conduct, the loyalty becomes a liability. This is wild.

 This is absolutely wild. We’re watching Patel’s alleged admissions and forced testimony create evidence that could ultimately convict both him and Trump. Trump should be screaming because his handpicked FBI director has allegedly admitted to illegal political purges and has given prosecutors testimony that could undermine Trump’s entire defense in the documents case.

 No public confession, no press conference admission, but sworn allegations from multiple former FBI agents claiming Patel told them directly he was breaking the law for political reasons. And sealed grand jury testimony that prosecutors fought hard to get because they believed it would help prove Trump’s guilt. That’s potentially more damaging than a public confession because it’s evidence that can be used in court.

 Evidence that’s locked in under oath. Evidence that Patel can’t take back or explain away. Trump erupts as these allegations surface because he knows what they mean. His FBI director has allegedly created a record of political retaliation and corruption and has testified under immunity in ways that likely hurt Trump’s legal defenses.

The lawsuits continue. The testimony is preserved and the legal jeopardy for both Patel and Trump keeps growing. Patel hasn’t publicly admitted horrific crimes, but the allegations that he privately admitted to illegal firings, combined with his compelled grand jury testimony, create exactly the kind of insider evidence that prosecutors dream of.

 And Trump can’t escape it because it’s his own guy, his handpicked FBI director, either admitting to crimes or testifying in ways that hurt Trump’s defenses. That’s Trump’s nightmare, not some enemy making accusations, but his own loyalist creating evidence against him through alleged admissions andforced testimony. And based on these lawsuits and the grand jury immunity situation, that nightmare is very real and very documented.