Loading record
Disputes over the role of federal law enforcement agencies in and around elections, including claims about their presence, authority, or conduct near polling places.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
2 statements on this page. Dates: September 15, 2026
2 matching statements. Dates: September 15, 2026
2 published statements. Dates: September 15, 2026
Role at the time: FBI Director
Statement summary
Kash Patel declined to give Sen. Peter Welch a direct pledge against FBI election interference, calling the request "a charade of lies."
“When did you hear that? It’s just another lie... I have pledged unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies.”
Fullest quoted transcript of the "just another lie" / "charade of lies" back-and-forth between Welch and Patel, corroborated by embedded video clips.
When Welch asked Patel to "pledge that you will not in any way interfere in the will of the American people when they go to the polls," Patel did not answer yes or no. Instead he called the question "just another lie" and said he had "pledged unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies" — refusing to give the requested pledge rather than answering it.
Role at the time: FBI Director
Response to this claim
Kash Patel privately told John James that the FBI will have a presence leading up to Election Day in Michigan, in both West Michigan and Southeast Michigan.
“We have an election crimes community coordinator in all 56 field offices, so you bet we’re going to have them there and manning the posts for election interference matters.”
The fullest secondary account of the Welch–Patel exchange, quoting Welch’s full question and Patel’s reply verbatim, plus the surrounding contentious back-and-forth.
Patel neither confirms nor denies James’s specific claim about a Michigan presence; he recharacterizes the matter as standing "election crimes community coordinators" present in all 56 field offices for "election interference matters," rather than a new or targeted deployment. This disputes the framing of James’s claim without a clear affirmation or denial — flagged as a genuinely close call for editorial review, since his answer could also be read as an implicit confirmation.
