Anna Moneymaker//Getty Images

It was Intelligence Day on Capitol Hill on Thursday, and this was entirely not ironic, honest.

Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel both met the Senate at the same time, a gathering of intelligence unseen in D.C. since the last time Franklin Pierce drank alone. That noted left-wing publication, The Economist, launched the festivities by publishing an assessment of Patel’s career. This is the headline above that story.

“Kash Patel is a crackpot”

Kash Patel likes conspiracy theories. Luckily for everyone else, conspiracists are normally kept far away from America’s federal law-enforcement and intelligence machinery, with all its powers of surveillance, investigation and arrest. Donald Trump has tested this premise in his choice of Mr Patel to lead the FBI. The 44-year-old lawyer—whose Senate confirmation hearing was on January 30th—has called that organization “one of the most cunning and powerful forces of the deep state”. If Mr Trump follows through on his occasional threats to retaliate against his enemies, that task may fall to his nominee.

Mr Patel is especially keen on pursuing leakers and their friends in the media. “When you have an underlying illegality committed by a government agent, anyone that participates in that illegality can and should be charged,” Mr Patel has said. He has also suggested “clawback mechanisms” for the money that news outlets make “by printing lies”.

Of course, John Bolton beat The Economist to the punch by going on TV and calling Patel “a climbing weed,” which, as much as I dislike Bolton, is some next-level snark. For his part, Patel followed the trail laid down on Wednesday by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He denied a great amount of his previously recorded public remarks, fudged the details about his service in the first Trump administration, and tried to bluster and bluff his way out of any corners he found himself in. He tried for slick and fell very short. It got him rung up by both Senator Mazie Hirono and Senator Adam Schiff, for whom Patel seems to share an animus equal to that nurtured by his once and possibly future boss. Hirono dogged him about whether or not he would go along with an investigation into former FBI director James Comey or other people on an “enemies list” that appears in one of Patel’s books. The ducking and dodging thereupon began.

Hirono: How about James Comey? Do you plan to investigate him?

Patel: Senator, every investigation will be subject to—

Hirono: Do you plan to investigate James Comey, who is on your list?

Patel: I have no intention of going backwards.

Hirono: How about Bill Barr?

Patel: I have no intention of using the Constitution—

(Ed. Note: Unless you are in a Philip K. Dick novel, every investigation “goes backwards.” Lordy lord, he’s bad at this.)

The two rounds with Schiff were a whole ‘nother thing. They have a history going back to when Schiff was a member of the House and Patel was an aide to the famous dairy-farming Trump lackey Devin Nunes. On Thursday, he and Patel went two rounds spiced with genuine dislike. Schiff kept chaffing the nominee about the absurd choir of incarcerated insurrectionists that Patel helped produce. (Earlier, Patel had denied he had anything to do with that freak show.) One memorable exchange came when Schiff read back some of Patel’s previous statements about the record, all of which began with the word, “We.” Patel then spent several minutes sparring with Schiff over what “we” really means. It illuminated nothing except Patel’s rather transient relationship with the truth.

Schiff: If you had nothing to do with it, Mr. Patel, why did you tell Steve Bannon and all his listeners that you did.

Patel: That’s why I said “we,” as you highlighted.

Schiff: Yeah, and you’re part of the “we,” aren’t you? You say, “we,” that includes you, doesn’t it. Mr. Patel?

Patel: Not in every instance.

Schiff: That’s new…

At which point, Schiff looked as though someone had handed him a two-headed trout, as, I suspect, I did, too. But Schiff then asked Patel to look at the Capitol Police on duty in the hearing room in the eye and tell them “you’re proud that you raised money off the people that assaulted their colleagues, that pepper sprayed them, that beat them with poles. Tell them how proud you are of what you did. They’re guarding you today. They’re right there. Tell them how proud you are.”

Patel: That is an abject lie…

But it was during their second go-round when things got even more ferocious. The topic was Patel’s grand jury testimony in the Pool Shed Papers matter. Schiff and the Democrats want it released. Patel said he would go along with that. Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley fumbled around, quoting a Xweet from Richard Grenell. Then Schiff went on to explain why he made the request.

Schiff: Let’s remind ourselves what those documents were down in Mar-a-Lago. According to the indictment, the classified documents Trump stored in his boxes included information on defense and weapons capabilities of the United States and foreign countries,…Finally, we need to think about where we are in this moment. We have a new president. He’s fired prosecutors who investigated him. He’s investigated other prosecutors, or his Department of Justice is. He’s fired inspector generals who might hold him accountable. And this is just the start. He’s chosen someone to be FBI director whose primary qualification in my view, is his willingness to say yes when everybody else would say no, to whatever the president wanted, to say whatever he wanted, to do whatever he wanted. That’s why he’s sitting here today.

Look at the people who have held that job before Mr. Patel. The stature of the people who have held that job, (Ed. Note: Hoover? Pat Gray? Louis Freeh? Not quite the flex I’d have chosen.) The qualifications of the people who have held that job. How can anyone say his background and his qualifications can hold a candle to the people who went before him. How did we get here, where we are defending a nominee like this—who makes songs with convicts who attack law enforcement. How did we get here and where are we going? History is littered with democracies that lost their freedoms and didn’t notice it while it was happening, let’s not be one of them.

Tulsi Gabbard was pretty bad, too.

• Republican Governors Are In a Bind Now