Is This the End!? What Kash Patel’s Confirmation Means for America

Summary

Bulwark Takes: Is This the End!? What Kash Patel’s Confirmation Means for America

Released on February 20, 2025, "Bulwark Takes" delves deep into the ramifications of Kash Patel's narrow confirmation as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Hosts Tim Miller and Sam Stein engage in a candid and urgent discussion about the potential transformations within American institutions, the politicization of the FBI, and the broader implications for national security and governance.

---

1. Confirmation Vote: A Narrow Passage

The episode opens with Tim Miller announcing the Senate vote results: a razor-thin 51-49 decision confirming Kash Patel as the new FBI Director.

Tim Miller [00:00]: "The vote is in, 51 in favor and 49 against confirming Kash Patel as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Sam expresses immediate disbelief and concern over the outcome.

Sam Stein [00:13]: "The position. You're kidding."

2. Sorrow and Anger: Emotional Reactions to Patel's Appointment

The hosts delve into their mixed emotions—sorrow and anger—regarding Patel's confirmation. Tim shares a message from a former FBI official, highlighting the dismay within the agency.

Tim Miller [00:47]: "I received a text from a former FBI official as I was coming up here. Right. This is so depressing. The guy who blamed January 6th on the FBI is going to lead the agency."

Sam underscores the potential threat to institutional integrity, drawing parallels to criticism leveled at figures like RFK Jr. and the broader intent to undermine established institutions.

Sam Stein [01:05]: "Didn't RFK Jr. Blame, you know, the CDC or the administration for like starting Covid. He thought it was a government thing and now he's going to lead it. It's like, you know, these people want to tear down the institutions."

3. Implications for the FBI: A Bureau Under Threat

The discussion intensifies as Tim and Sam dissect the possible changes within the FBI under Patel's leadership. Tim voices concerns about the agency's focus shifting away from domestic terrorism to more politically motivated targets.

Tim Miller [02:13]: "At minimum, I think a gutting of anyone that is trying or looking into domestic terror threats, non-brown version. And you know, there's going to be at minimum sidelining if not firings of really credible law enforcement officials who like, whose job is to keep us safe."

Sam warns of a future where the FBI could engage in selective prosecutions, reminiscent of J. Edgar Hoover's era, prioritizing political objectives over national security.

Sam Stein [03:02]: "They will purge the FBI of anyone that they don't believe is loyal to Donald Trump. And what you'll have is a bureau that basically, in the most benign sense, a bureau that basically follows or pursues his specific objectives... in the most alarming version of this, you have a completely guardrail free FBI that is launching actual political investigations under phony pretexts and on Democrats."

4. Senate Dynamics: The Role of Key Senators

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to critiquing Republican senators like Dave McCormick and John Curtis, who played pivotal roles in Patel's confirmation. Tim expresses profound frustration with McCormick's vote, questioning his commitment to Republican principles.

Tim Miller [06:02]: "It's Davos Dave McCormick... It's like, why though? Really? Why? If Dave McCormick is going to be the fucking tie-breaking vote to, or the 51st vote to, to make Cash Patel the director of the FBI, then what is the difference between him and Doug Mastriano? None. None."

Sam echoes these sentiments, highlighting the superficial differences between these senators and more extreme figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Sam Stein [08:13]: "John Curtis... was supposed to be Mitt Romney 2.0... The guy's not up for six years either."

Both hosts lament the lack of decisive opposition from moderate Republicans, fearing a future where political loyalty overshadows ethical governance.

5. Comparing Political Figures: The Rise of Extremism

Tim draws a parallel between the current political climate and past extremist movements, suggesting that the confirmation marks a descent into a more volatile and conspiratorial era.

Tim Miller [07:20]: "They might as well just put on the fucking hat and like, you know, start saying retard again and doing whatever is possible that makes MAGA people happy and start doing conspiracies called Zelensky names."

Sam adds that while the superficial antics of these politicians degrade public discourse, the real threat lies in their substantive actions—or lack thereof.

Sam Stein [10:03]: "The real substantive stuff... the actual distinctions are not that profound and certainly not in the way that the intellectual insider Republican crowd was pitching it."

6. Future Implications: A Darkening Horizon

As the episode nears its conclusion, Tim and Sam forecast the potential long-term impacts of Patel's leadership on upcoming elections and national policies. Tim predicts that similar dynamics will influence the Georgia Senate race, potentially leading to the election of candidates who further entrench these troubling trends.

Tim Miller [09:28]: "There'll be a Georgia Senate race this year, and the same people that pushed McCormick will push Brian Kemp. And it's just like, give Marjorie Taylor Greene the fucking senator."

Sam reflects on the pre-clearance fears they had regarding potential confirmations, ranking Cash Patel as the most alarming despite initial concerns about other nominees.

Sam Stein [11:05]: "I still think RFK is gonna. I still more fearful of him than all the others. But Cash is up there for sure."

7. Conclusion: A Call to Awareness

The episode wraps with a stern warning about the path America is on, emphasizing the need for vigilance and resistance against the erosion of institutional integrity.

Tim Miller [10:39]: "Buckle up, everybody. Because this is a dark. Not in a good way. Because this is a dark spirit we're turning into."

Key Takeaways

• Narrow Confirmation: Kash Patel's 51-49 Senate vote signifies a precarious start to his tenure as FBI Director.

• Institutional Threats: Concerns revolve around the potential politicization and depoliticization of the FBI, risking the agency's impartiality and effectiveness.

• Senate Dynamics: Republican senators Dave McCormick and John Curtis face heavy criticism for their roles in Patel's confirmation, highlighting deeper issues within the party.

• Rise of Extremism: The discussion underscores fears of a shift towards more extreme and conspiratorial political figures, drawing unsettling parallels to past eras.

• Future Implications: The confirmation is seen as a harbinger for future elections and policy directions, with significant implications for American democracy and governance.

Notable Quotes:

• Tim Miller [00:15]: "That's going to be Cash Patel's job. The guy that wrote that children's book about QAnon and Donald Trump being a king."

• Sam Stein [03:02]: "They will purge the FBI of anyone that they don't believe is loyal to Donald Trump."

• Tim Miller [07:40]: "This would be the moment for him to just be like, okay, I've got leverage. Maybe Thom Tillis. Fuck you, too."

• Sam Stein [10:03]: "The real substantive stuff... the actual distinctions are not that profound."

Conclusion:

"Bulwark Takes" offers a sobering analysis of Kash Patel's confirmation and its potential to reshape the FBI and American politics. Tim Miller and Sam Stein articulate a deep-seated concern for the future of U.S. institutions, urging listeners to remain informed and engaged in the face of these pivotal changes.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everybody, it's Tim Mow at the Bulwark here with managing editor Sam Stein. The vote is in, 51 in favor and 49 against confirming cash Patel as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[B]

Repeat that? Sorry.

[A]

Cash Patel.

[B]

No, no. The, the, the position. You're kidding.

[A]

Yeah. Director of the Federal. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yeah. That's going to be Cash Patel's job. The guy that wrote that children's book about QAnon and Donald Trump being a king. That's him running the FBI. I have two thoughts. I'm in sorrow and in anger. So do you want to go first?

[B]

No, I would not want to get in the way of your sorrow.

[A]

You want me. Do you want sorrow or anger first?

[B]

Let's start with sorrow.

[A]

Okay. I received a text from a former FBI official as I was coming up here. Right. This is so depressing. The guy who blamed January 6th on the FBI is going to lead the agency.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Goes on and on. Pretty good way to sum it up. And it is across the board.

[B]

Didn't RFK Jr. Blame, you know, the CDC or the administration for like starting covet. He thought it was a government thing and now he's going to lead it. It's like, you know, these people want to tear down the institutions. They're not going to lead. I think that's, that's what they, these people want. Right? That's the idea.

[A]

That's the point of it. There is, you know, the FBI folks I've heard from, the whole thing is so ludicrous. Like, because most of the FBI is, is conservative. Like there are a lot of Trump voters who are inside the FBI and like they're about. What we're about to see is at minimum, I think a gutting of the. Anyone that is trying. Charged was looking into domestic terror threats, non brown version. And, and you know, there's going to be at minimum sidelining if not firings of really credible law enforcement officials who like, whose job is to keep us safe. And all they did wrong was get included in the investigation of Donald Trump for his coup attempt and his other various crimes. And the whole thing is under the.

[B]

Name, under the name of depoliticizing the FBI. They will purge the FBI of anyone that they don't believe is loyal to Donald Trump. And what you'll have is a bureau that basically, in the most benign sense, a bureau that basically follows or pursues his specific objectives. Right. Less interested in domestic terrorism and stuff like that and more interested in fentanyl, drug cartels, immigration, that type of stuff. In the most alarming version of this, you have a completely guardrail free FBI that is launching actual political investigations under phony pretexts and on Democrats and doing stuff that, you know, was reminiscent of the worst days of J. Edgar Hoover.

[A]

Yeah. And if you are like, if you were of the view that it was going to be the first, like just the sham depoliticization where all you do is just not investigate friends or, you know, and friends include all the way up to white domestic terrorists and, you know, whatever. Maybe some folks get targeted, but they do it through the law. Like, I don't know, the Eric Adams situation, I think would seem to disabuse anybody of the notion that it's going to be on the lighter end of that scale. I mean, they just, they've already specifically, like, basically the first action of the Pam Bondi DOJ was to say we're going to cut an explicitly political quid pro quo deal with somebody. So, I mean, I guess that's not targeting someone, but it's in.

[B]

No, it's selective prosecutions and selective non prosecutions. Right. And so in, in this universe, let's say theoretically, someone at the Department of Justice is tipped off that a friend of Donald Trump has, you know, committed some sort of public corruption or private corruption, and it falls into a lap and they have to make a choice about whether to have the FBI investigate it. All right, that ain't gonna happen, right?

[A]

Yeah, I don't.

[B]

There's no way that's gonna happen. And then the flip side of that is, do they, you know, launch investigations based on flimsy pretenses and into people who, you know, they just don't like? And you're starting to see, I mean, this is not FBI, obviously, but you know, the Attorney General of D.C. office under Ed Martin is like, he's like putting out statements, be like, we're going to look into Chuck Schumer because he said something about Doge and its workers there. It's like, what?

[A]

Yeah, he's looking into who's the tweeter from Minnesota. He's looking into Will Stancil.

[B]

The most important threat, the most pressing matter in all of human history. Will Stancil. N. It's dark, man. And it's like, it's, you know, what was it like early Trump years? Cash was kind of like this weird, mythical, weird figure who was kind of in and around the White House and people are like, what is he doing?

[A]

Nunes world at first, Nunez world. And like, he'd show up in Europe doing like rogue investigations into the dossier.

[B]

And like serious people were like, this guy is kind of insane and dangerous to have around. But Trump 2.0 is that these are the people who are running this stuff and we're just in uncharted territory here. And I guess I, I'm a little bit surprised. I shouldn't have been. I thought this one might have been a step too far for four Republicans, but.

[A]

Okay, well that takes us nicely to anger. Do you want to guess who I'm angry at? Because it might not be the obvious person that I'm like, I just did yoga, so I'm looking so fresh. But I have not Namaste. I'm concerned with rage at one person particular.

[B]

Is it a. Can you narrow it?

[A]

Is it a setting Senator sitting senator, his key supporters?

[B]

Oh man, geez. I don't know. It could be.

[A]

It's Davos Dave McCormick. It's Dave. Because here's why. It's a double reason. Number one, Dave McCormick, he's got a six year up for election again. Six years, right. Okay. Who the hell knows what things will look like in 20, 30, 30 or 32. When you got 30 in 20, your.

[B]

Math is pretty solid. But 20, 30, yes.

[A]

Yeah. Who knows what the world will look like then? So the idea that you're doing this out of political fear or whatever is crazy. The thing that gets me even more than him himself though is like he was like the safe person for all the people in my world to go support. Right. So even the people that are anti Trump, you know, big donors of the Bush family, W himself had an event for him Rove like that world, like folks that I know, but across the world into business world. Davos Dave was like, you know, very popular among kind of non political, Jamie Dimon type centrist rich guys. Okay. So he gets millions in support for all these guys and their rationale always in doing that when I press them on this. And I actually, I forgot to press one of them on this on a panel private thing recently, but was like, well, it's better to have Davos Dave there than Doug Mastriano or do whatever.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

It's like. And it's like, why though? Really? Why? Why? If, if, if Dave McCormick is going to be the fucking tie breaking vote to, or the 51st vote to, to make Cash Patel the director of the FBI, then what is the difference between him and Doug Nastriano? None. None.

[B]

So there's no difference.

[A]

This would be the moment for him to just be like, okay, I've Got leverage. Maybe Thom Tillis. Fuck you, too. But we'll give you a break because you're up in two years. I'm not up in six years. I'll take this arrow. You know, there are guys that are worried about this. There are senior FBI guys that are worried about this. We know about them. They're people that have deep relations with the Republicans. Like, I'm going to take the arrow on this one. This guy is too dangerous, too clownish. I'm going to be against it. But no, he's like, he might as well fucking just be a random commenter on, like, newsmax. Like, Dave McCormick. What's the fucking difference?

[B]

So I was talking. It's funny you send this because Sarah Longwell and I have been talking about this, and it's a comm. She's got it right. If she's listening to this Sarah. About just like, what. There is no. The moderate Republican senator kind of. You don't have to hand it to them ever. At this point. They're not really doing anything. It's Dave, put McCormick. I mean, John, what is this guy, the senator from Utah, John Curtis?

[A]

Curtis, yeah. Yeah.

[B]

He was supposed to be Mitt Romney 2.0. The guy voted for all these people. Far as I can tell, I'm missing something. I think he voted for every one of the controversial nominees. That dude's not up for six years either. I mean, so. And like, you know, the insider reporting stuff is that, well, they structured their vote. They didn't. So that they could object in some places, none of those. And not tank these nominees. And, well, they want to make sure that John Th Comes out looking strong because he's sort of more responsible, and they got to give him some credibility. And it's just like, no, at some point, if you believe something is wrong, you just do what you can to oppose it. And. And that's just not happening here. And ultimately, the only thing you can really conclude is that they like it or they want it, that they don't want it.

[A]

And so that's why we're gonna get into, like, there'll be a Georgia Senate race this year, and the same people that pushed McCormick will push Brian Kemp. And it's just like. Just give Marjorie Taylor Greene the fucking senator, okay? Just like there honestly isn't a difference. There isn't a difference until Dave McCormick or John Curtis does one thing that demonstrates they're different from Marjorie Taylor Greene. They're not. They might as well just put on the fucking hat and like, you know, start. Start Saying retard again and doing whatever is possible that makes MAGA people happy and start doing conspiracies called Zelensky names. Do it like just. You might as well just do all that because you're. You're not doing anything better than that.

[B]

I would say the only difference to your point, like, the real difference is just Is a superficial one, which is are they willing to be public facing and crazy online and, you know, that stuff matters. I'm not saying that doesn't matter. Like the, you know, the sort of ruining the discourse, the. The conspiracy adult crap that they subject us to. Like that. That matters. And I'm grateful that they don't do that. But like one. The real substantive stuff, the. The actual distinctions are not that profound and certainly not in the way that the intellectual insider Republican crowd was pitching it.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

During the election. So. Yeah. Okay.

[A]

Anyway. Eat a dick, Dave McCormick. This is. Buckle up, everybody. Because this is a dark. Not in a good way. Because this is a dark spirit we're turning into.

[B]

We know. We. You and I did a thing early on before the confirmations where we sort of ranked the fears we had about all four of the big ones. I forget what you did, but now that it's happened, how do you assess your.

[A]

It's a good question because I think I ranked Tulsi first and then Cash. I don't remember. We'd have to go back to the tape on this. I think you did do Tulsi first, but it's Cash. You know, sometimes you have to really experience something to know what your body. What your body feels like. And we've gone through this and Cash's blatant, I think, obvious lies. You don't know for sure if it's reporting, but seems very likely that he just. Bald face lied during his confirmation hearing. I think Cash is the most alarming. And Tulsi and Hegseth and your man RFK last, but.

[B]

RFK last.

[A]

Yeah, but I mean, yeah, I mean, just because I'm so alarmed by the others, like, the measles is not great, but my child's vaccinated. So here's where we're at.

[B]

Okay. So it don't matter. Look, I'll just say, as we are doing this, news has broken. RFK Jr. Is preparing to remove members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee and other outside health panels who he determines have conflicts of interest. So, no, I stick with mine. I still think RFK is gonna. I still more fearful of him than all the others. But Cash is up there for sure.

[A]

I gotta run. Everybody subscribe to the feed. Thanks to Sam's time, I have so.

[B]

Much more I want to talk about.

[A]

We'll hang out again later. We'll just do another video with the videos all the time. Now subscribe to the feed. You'll see the next one and we'll get to hear what Sam wanted to talk about next. That's a tease. See you soon.

[B]

Bye.