Denzel Washington had a tense exchange with a photographer on the red carpet Monday at the Cannes Film Festival during the debut of his future film “Highest 2 Lowest.” Despite the confrontation, Washington was later surprised with a rare honorary Palme d’Or and gave an emotional acceptance speech at the prestigious event.
According to the Daily Beast, the incident occurred during the world premiere of “Highest 2 Lowest,” which marks Washington’s first film with director Spike Lee in nearly two decades. As Washington made his way down the red carpet, a photographer reportedly attempted to get his attention by physically grabbing him. Washington responded by yelling at the photographer and demanding that he stop.
According to eyewitnesses, the photographer laughed off the initial confrontation and proceeded to grab Washington’s arm a second time. In response, Washington pointed his finger in the photographer’s face and firmly told him, “Stop it.” The situation escalated briefly before the event staff appeared to diffuse the moment. A representative for Washington did not respond to The Daily Beast when asked to comment on the altercation.
Though tensions ran high on the red carpet, the mood shifted dramatically later that day inside the festival hall. Washington was surprised with an honorary Palme d’Or, one of the highest distinctions awarded at Cannes and one that has only been presented 21 times throughout the festival’s 79-year history.
Receiving the award appeared to catch Washington off guard, and he addressed the crowd with an emotional and heartfelt speech. He spoke about the significance of the moment, as well as the joy of collaborating with Spike Lee once again. “This is a total surprise for me, so I’m emotional,” he said to the audience while holding the golden palm.
He went on to reflect on the privilege of being part of the filmmaking community. “It’s a great opportunity to collaborate with my brother once again, brother from another mother, and to be here once again in Cannes,” Washington continued. “We’re just blessed beyond measure.”
“I’m blessed beyond measure,” he added. “From the bottom of my heart, I thank you all.” Applause filled the room as the actor concluded his remarks, with leading industry figures celebrating his long-running impact on cinema.
Washington’s new film “Highest 2 Lowest” marks the fifth time he has teamed up with acclaimed director Spike Lee. Their creative partnership dates back to 1990, and past collaborations include “Mo’ Better Blues,” “Malcolm X,” “He Got Game,” and “Inside Man.” Their latest joint effort adds a modern twist to a cinematic classic.
The film is a reinterpretation of Akira Kurosawa’s 1963 crime thriller “High and Low,” reimagined in English for contemporary audiences. The narrative features an ensemble cast, with Washington joined by actors Ilfenesh Hadera, Jeffrey Wright, and musical artists Ice Spice and A$AP Rocky. The film explores themes of social division and personal morality.
“Highest 2 Lowest” is set for theatrical release on August 22, bringing Washington’s return to a leading role on the big screen after a brief hiatus. With Lee at the helm, anticipation for the film has continued to grow, especially after the buzz surrounding its Cannes debut.
The red carpet confrontation drew widespread attention and reignited conversations about personal boundaries between celebrities and photographers in high-profile settings. Onlookers at the premiere noted Washington’s visible discomfort as the photographer approached him aggressively, sparking the altercation. Physical contact from the photographer appeared to cross a line that prompted Washington’s reaction.
Though no formal incident report was filed, the moment was captured on video by spectators and quickly circulated online. Some festival attendees voiced support for Washington, emphasizing the respect expected in professional interactions. Others speculated about the need for clearer boundaries and tighter regulations on red carpet coverage.
The Cannes Film Festival has long been known for its glamorous and sometimes unpredictable atmosphere. However, this particular episode highlighted the pressure and scrutiny actors face when attending major international events. The exchange between Washington and the photographer served as a reminder of the challenges celebrities encounter beyond the screen.
Although the red carpet incident took some attention away from the film’s premiere, Washington’s composure during the later proceedings helped redirect focus to his artistic achievements. The emotional speech and prestigious award helped end the evening on a celebratory note. Festival-goers left with a sense of appreciation for both the man and his work. As awards season predictions begin to take shape, some critics are already speculating that Washington’s performance in “Highest 2 Lowest” could garner further recognition.
With the August 22 release date approaching, audiences will soon have their opportunity to see the film that brought Washington and Lee back together on screen. Until then, the events at Cannes have ensured that both the altercation and the honor remain part of the conversation surrounding one of Hollywood’s most respected artists.
Elon Musk made headlines this week by announcing that he intends to remain at Tesla’s helm for at least five more years while backing away from political donations as scrutiny around his public role grows.
Musk, speaking at the industry summit, stated that his future at Tesla is secure. In a lighthearted tone, he responded to a question about his leadership by joking, “Well, no, I might die,” eliciting laughter from the audience. However, on more measured terms, he committed to staying in his role as Tesla’s CEO for the foreseeable future, Daily Mail reported.
He also addressed his history of political contributions. Musk said he would be scaling back significantly, noting he has “done enough” through past donations. He emphasized that his role as a campaign contributor is winding down, particularly referring to prior support of Republican efforts.
The comments arrive at a time when internal worries at Tesla have become more vocal. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, Tesla’s board of directors began the search for a potential successor last month. Some board members, including Musk’s brother Kimbal Musk, and former board member James Murdoch, are reportedly engaged in discussions about the future of the company’s leadership.
Concerns have emerged over Musk’s increasing political involvement, especially following his advisory role with DOGE (Department of Government Operations and Engineering), where he has been spending significant time in Washington. This involvement, while giving Musk a voice in national policymaking, has led to critique within Tesla’s leadership over divided attention and priorities.
While some Tesla board members remain close allies of Musk, frustration is said to be growing among others. The belief that his political opinions and governmental engagements may be affecting Tesla's performance has energized calls for clearer focus from the executive team. Musk’s ongoing affiliation with controversial political figures has added to the friction.
Tesla vehicle sales have also been under pressure, particularly since Musk’s increased public profile in politics. According to internal company data, the automaker has seen a shift in its customer base, with liberal-leaning consumers—once Tesla’s most enthusiastic supporters—now turning to alternatives like Hyundai, Kia, and Ford, all of which have reported rising EV deliveries in 2025.
The launch of DOGE and Musk’s open support for former President Donald Trump in the 2024 U.S. election have weighed on Tesla’s brand image. Musk donated millions to Trump's campaign and had been financially backing Republican-aligned Super PACs in earlier cycles. This political alignment, while strengthening appeal to certain consumers, appears to have hurt the automaker's reach among broader target audiences.
Musk has acknowledged a changing demographic for Tesla, noting that while sales are performing better among conservative consumers, they are declining among progressive drivers. Internally, the company has pivoted with strategies intended to cater more to right-leaning buyers. These efforts come alongside updates to its product lineup, which has also faced criticism for aging design cycles.
Tesla continues to rely heavily on its Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover SUV, both of which recently received slight mid-cycle refreshes. The Model 3 originally debuted in 2017 and the Model Y followed in 2020. Each of these vehicles had gone several years without major design changes—an unusually long period in the competitive global auto market.
Despite the 2025 enhancements to the Model 3 and Model Y—mainly involving minor design tweaks and battery improvements—sales have not rebounded as hoped. The company has already begun discounting the long-range Model Y, even though it launched less than a month ago. The move signals weak demand that may linger in a softening market.
The challenges facing Tesla are not limited to North America. Internationally, the brand has been losing momentum, particularly in Europe and China. Sales in China have slipped by more than 18% compared to the same period in 2024, with significant drops also seen in the United Kingdom and Germany, down 62% and 46%, respectively.
Germany presented another potentially damaging moment for Musk’s public image. During a visit, Musk appeared to show support for German leaders criticized for extremist rhetoric around World War II history. In addition, he was photographed making a gesture widely interpreted as a version of the Roman salute, which further fueled backlash across European media.
As Tesla navigates brand and leadership turmoil, technological competition has also intensified. EV specialists like Chinese automaker BYD have unveiled battery systems that differentiate them from U.S.-based manufacturers. BYD's new batteries can fully charge in the time it takes to refill a gas tank—about three times faster than current American EVs.
In facing political backlash, leadership uncertainty, and consumer fatigue, Musk’s recent moves signal an attempt to reset focus. His decision to dial back political donations and recommit to the CEO role could be an effort to reassure investors and Tesla leadership alike.
FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino sparked renewed controversy during their appearance on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" when discussing the details of Jeffrey Epstein's death.
According to Breitbart, both FBI officials firmly stated that Jeffrey Epstein's death was a suicide, challenging persistent public skepticism about the circumstances surrounding the incident. Deputy Director Bongino emphasized his certainty by revealing he had reviewed the complete file on the case.
The declaration came during a discussion with host Maria Bartiromo, who voiced widespread public doubt about the official narrative. Director Patel, drawing from his extensive experience in the criminal justice system, defended the suicide conclusion. His background as both a public defender and prosecutor lent weight to his assessment of the situation.
Patel's response to skepticism was rooted in his firsthand knowledge of the prison system. He specifically referenced his familiarity with the Metropolitan Detention Center and segregated housing units. This extensive experience, he argued, qualified him to recognize the characteristics of a suicide case.
The FBI Director's position reflected confidence in the official investigation's findings. His statement demonstrated the bureau's unwavering stance on the matter despite years of public speculation and conspiracy theories. The certainty in his voice suggested frustration with persistent doubts about the case.
Deputy Director Bongino's declaration was equally definitive. His access to the complete file appeared to strengthen his conviction about the nature of Epstein's death. The emphasis on having seen "the whole file" suggested a thorough review of all available evidence.
The exchange between Bartiromo and the FBI officials highlighted the ongoing divide between official accounts and public perception. The host's acknowledgment of widespread disbelief reflected the enduring nature of alternative theories about Epstein's death.
Many Americans continue to question the circumstances surrounding the incident. The high-profile nature of Epstein's case, combined with his connections to powerful figures, has fueled persistent speculation about possible foul play.
The timing of this definitive statement from top FBI officials suggested an attempt to put the matter to rest. However, the brief nature of their responses, without a detailed explanation of the evidence, might not satisfy those demanding more transparency.
The FBI leadership's unified position on Epstein's death carried significant implications for the bureau's credibility. Their straightforward declarations suggested confidence in the investigation's thoroughness and accuracy.
Both officials appeared aware that their statements would face intense scrutiny. The decision to address the matter directly on national television indicated a strategic choice to confront persistent doubts head-on.
The emphasis on their professional credentials and direct access to evidence appeared designed to bolster public trust in their conclusions. However, the brevity of their statements left room for continued debate about the details of the case.
FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino and Director Kash Patel used their appearance on "Sunday Morning Futures" to definitively declare Jeffrey Epstein's death a suicide. Their statements, based on complete access to case files and extensive law enforcement experience, aimed to counter years of public speculation about the controversial case.
The FBI officials' firm stance on Epstein's death, supported by their claimed review of all available evidence, represented an attempt to close the chapter on one of the most debated deaths in recent American history.
However, their brief statements, while authoritative, may not fully satisfy those seeking more detailed explanations of the evidence supporting their conclusions.
In a dramatic reversal, the U.S. Department of Education has canceled a $37.7 million penalty previously imposed on Grand Canyon University, clearing the institution of any misconduct.
Breitbart News reported that the nation's largest Christian university was formally cleared by the Education Department after a case accusing it of misleading students about program costs was dismissed with prejudice.
The fine — the largest ever proposed against a university — was levied in 2023 during the Biden administration following an investigation into whether GCU had misled students about the cost of its doctoral programs. At the time, federal officials claimed that more than 7,500 students had been affected. The department accused the university of failing to adequately disclose the requirements and total expenses of the program, charges GCU vehemently denied.
GCU’s leadership pushed back against the allegations from the start, calling them unfounded and asserting that the university had always provided full cost information. In response to the fine, the university stated it would take all necessary measures to challenge what it described as false claims. The administration insisted its communication with students adhered to federal standards and transparency rules.
On Friday, the Department of Education’s Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a formal Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, closing the case with prejudice. This legal designation means the case cannot be reopened or filed again in the future. The decision was first reported on Monday by the Daily Caller.
The dismissal explicitly stated that there were no findings of wrongdoing against the university or any of its employees, agents, or representatives. It also confirmed that no fines would be imposed as part of the case outcome. The Education Department found that GCU had not violated any Title IV federal student aid regulations, the legal foundation for the prior enforcement action.
Brian Mueller, president of Grand Canyon University, welcomed the decision and underscored the university's commitment to ethical practices. “The facts clearly support our contention that we were wrongly accused of misleading our Doctoral students,” Mueller told Fox News. “We appreciate the recognition that those accusations were without merit.”
The initial fine became a point of contention among groups who believed the Biden administration was unfairly scrutinizing religiously affiliated institutions. Critics argued that faith-based colleges, like GCU, were being held to stricter standards than other schools. A 2024 report from Breitbart News claimed the Biden-Harris administration had disproportionately investigated Christian and religious colleges while giving less attention to elite nonreligious universities.
In response to the case’s dismissal, a spokesperson for the Trump-era Department of Education said that future enforcement actions will focus on evidence, not ideology. “Unlike the previous Administration, we will not persecute and prosecute colleges and universities based on their religious affiliation,” said DOE spokesperson Ellen Keast. “The Trump Administration will continue to ensure every institution of higher education is held accountable based on facts – but Department enforcement will be for the purpose of serving students, not political bias.”
The fine attracted attention not only because of its size but also because of the implications it had for how federal oversight is applied across different types of institutions. GCU officials maintained that the enforcement measure was not only excessive but also rooted in flawed or misleading interpretations of their practices.
Grand Canyon University consistently maintained that its doctoral program disclosures were honest and transparent. In a previous five-page statement, which followed the announcement of the fine, the school accused the Department of making “lies and deceptive statements.” The administration emphasized that its cost breakdowns were clear and made available to students throughout the admissions process.
The case’s resolution marks the end of what had been a months-long effort by GCU to restore its reputation. The university serves tens of thousands of students and stands as the country’s largest Christian institution of higher learning. The exoneration removes a cloud that had loomed over the school since the initial allegations were made public in 2023.
“Grand Canyon University categorically denies every accusation in the Department of Education’s statement,” the university said after the original fine was announced, as reported by the Associated Press. “We will take all measures necessary to defend itself from these false accusations.”
The $37.7 million fine was the largest single enforcement action attempted under Title IV, which governs how federal student aid is administered. That level of financial penalty emphasized the seriousness with which the Biden-era Department of Education pursued the case. But with the dismissal now in place, it serves instead as one of the most significant reversals in the department’s recent history.
For GCU, the decision allows the university to move forward without the shadow of government sanction. The case’s dismissal affirms GCU's longstanding position that its communications with students were accurate and that the charges against it lacked merit. Whether this changes how similar cases are handled in the future remains to be seen.
The Supreme Court's decision on Monday sets the stage for a significant shift in immigration policy affecting hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals living in the United States under temporary protected status.
According to Fox News, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court injunction that had prevented President Donald Trump's administration from terminating temporary protected status (TPS) for approximately 300,000 Venezuelan migrants currently residing in the United States.
The ruling represents a major victory for the Trump administration's immigration enforcement agenda, allowing officials to proceed with plans to immediately remove Venezuelan nationals who had been granted protection during the Biden administration. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer successfully argued that the lower court judge had exceeded their authority by blocking the program's termination.
The case centered on the Department of Homeland Security's authority to manage the TPS program, which provides legal residence and work permits to individuals from designated countries facing disasters, armed conflicts, or other extraordinary circumstances. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated the program for specific Venezuelan nationals in February, citing national interest concerns.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California had previously ruled to maintain the protections, siding with the National TPS Alliance. Chen's decision suggested the abrupt termination may have been influenced by negative stereotypes about Venezuelan migrants.
The administration strongly disputed this characterization, with Solicitor General Sauer arguing that the lower court's interpretation was fundamentally flawed and represented an improper intrusion into executive branch authority over immigration policy.
Sauer's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court emphasized the executive branch's discretionary power in immigration matters, particularly those involving foreign policy considerations. The administration maintained that TPS decisions fall squarely within presidential authority.
The Supreme Court's decision effectively validates the administration's position that immigration policy decisions, especially those involving temporary protection programs, remain firmly within executive branch jurisdiction. This ruling sets a significant precedent for future immigration policy decisions.
Legal experts note that this decision could impact similar cases involving TPS beneficiaries from other nations, potentially allowing the administration to review and terminate protected status for additional groups of migrants.
The ruling's immediate impact will affect hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals who have built lives in the United States under TPS protection. These individuals now face potential deportation as the administration moves to implement its new policy.
Critics of the decision argue that returning Venezuelan nationals to their home country could expose them to dangerous conditions. Advocates for TPS beneficiaries express concern about the humanitarian implications of the court's ruling. The administration maintains that its decision aligns with broader immigration enforcement goals and national security interests, emphasizing the temporary nature of TPS designations.
The Supreme Court's ruling opens the door for the Department of Homeland Security to begin implementing its termination plan for Venezuelan TPS holders.
Venezuelan nationals affected by this decision will need to either seek alternative immigration status or prepare to leave the United States. Immigration advocates are working to provide legal assistance and guidance to impacted individuals.
The Supreme Court's decision to allow the Trump administration to proceed with ending TPS protection for Venezuelan nationals marks a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy. By lifting the lower court's injunction, the high court has cleared the way for the potential removal of 300,000 Venezuelan migrants who previously enjoyed protected status.
The ruling reinforces executive branch authority over immigration matters and sets a precedent for future decisions regarding temporary protected status designations. As the administration moves forward with implementing this policy change, affected Venezuelan nationals face uncertainty about their future in the United States.
The media landscape at CBS News faces significant upheaval as CEO Wendy McMahon's unexpected departure sends shockwaves through the network's newsroom.
According to Fox News, McMahon announced her resignation on Monday, citing disagreements with Paramount Global over the network's direction, particularly as speculation mounts regarding a potential settlement in President Donald Trump's $20 billion lawsuit against the company.
The timing of McMahon's exit proves particularly significant, coming mere hours after she participated in the network's regular editorial call, where she gave no indication of her impending departure. Her resignation follows closely on the heels of "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens' recent departure, who left citing concerns over maintaining editorial independence.
McMahon's departure message to staff highlighted the growing tensions within CBS News' parent company. In her memo, she acknowledged the challenging nature of recent months while expressing gratitude for her tenure, stating, "It has been one of the most meaningful chapters in my career. Leading this extraordinary organization has been the honor of a lifetime because I got to work alongside all of you."
CBS News insiders reveal that McMahon's exit didn't come as a complete surprise to many staffers, who had been following industry gossip about potential leadership changes. One CBS staffer noted, "We all read the gossip articles. We knew this was coming."
The network's journalists have particularly praised McMahon's unwavering support of their work, with veteran "60 Minutes" producers expressing concern about the future direction of CBS News' editorial independence.
The backdrop to McMahon's resignation involves President Trump's massive lawsuit against CBS News and Paramount Global, which alleges election interference during the 2024 presidential race. The legal battle centers on the controversial editing of Vice President Kamala Harris's interview on "60 Minutes" last October.
The editing controversy erupted when different versions of Harris's response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared in separate broadcasts. The preview clip on "Face the Nation" showed Harris delivering what critics called a "word salad" answer, while the primetime special featured a more polished response.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr's involvement escalated the situation when he demanded CBS News release the unedited transcript of the Harris interview following complaints about potential violations of the FCC's "news distortion" policy.
Paramount Global's controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, reportedly seeks to settle the Trump lawsuit to facilitate a planned merger with Skydance Media. Sources suggest Redstone's concerns about potential regulatory obstacles from Trump's FCC are driving this strategy.
Internal tensions have risen as Redstone allegedly attempted to monitor upcoming "60 Minutes" segments involving Trump and urged executives to delay sensitive reporting until after the merger's completion. These actions reportedly contributed to Bill Owens' departure from the network.
Scott Pelley, "60 Minutes" correspondent, appeared to address these pressures during his Wake Forest University commencement speech on Monday, suggesting that powerful interests often attempt to intimidate truth-seekers through legal action.
The convergence of McMahon's departure, ongoing lawsuit negotiations, and mounting pressure on editorial independence raises significant questions about CBS News' future direction. Veteran journalists within the organization express growing concern about maintaining journalistic integrity amid corporate pressures.
One "60 Minutes" producer captured the sentiment among staff members, stating, "This is so unfortunate. It seems that to actively pledge adherence to journalistic integrity and independence means you no longer have a home within CBS News leadership. I don't think [it] bodes well."
Wendy McMahon's sudden exit from CBS News marks a critical turning point for the network as it grapples with President Trump's lawsuit and potential corporate restructuring. The resignation, coupled with Bill Owens' earlier departure, has created uncertainty about the network's ability to maintain editorial independence amid pressure from parent company Paramount Global. The network now faces the dual challenge of maintaining its journalistic standards while navigating complex corporate interests, particularly as speculation grows about an imminent settlement with Trump and the pending Skydance Media merger.
The administration of former President Donald Trump has reportedly agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement with the family of Ashli Babbitt, a woman fatally shot by law enforcement during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Lawyers have told a federal judge that a settlement has been reached in principle to resolve a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from Babbitt's shooting, which had originally sought $30 million in damages, Breitbart News reported.
Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran, was shot by U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd as she attempted to climb through a shattered window near the House Speaker’s lobby. The shooting occurred amid the chaos of the Capitol breach, where rioters tried to halt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
The wrongful death suit was filed by Babbitt’s family in early 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The family alleged that Babbitt was unarmed, posed no threat, and was not affiliated with any unlawful actions. They initially sought $30 million in compensation from the government.
On May 2, 2025, attorneys representing both the Babbitt family and the federal government informed U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes that they had reached an agreement in principle. The parties reported the development during a scheduled court hearing but noted that no final agreement had been signed at that time.
The judge instructed the lawyers to return with an update by the following Thursday, signaling the matter is still pending finalization. Two individuals familiar with the case disclosed that the settlement amount will total just under $5 million, according to reports.
Although a binding resolution has not been officially recorded, the disclosure of a preliminary agreement marks a significant step toward closing a high-profile civil case linked to the January 6 riot.
Initially, the Department of Justice opposed the lawsuit filed by the Babbitt estate. The change in posture came in May 2024 when the Justice Department shifted its approach and entered settlement discussions with the plaintiff’s legal team.
Back in 2021, the department had conducted an investigation into the event and found there was not enough evidence to prosecute Lt. Byrd for a civil rights violation. That decision was aligned with a separate inquiry by the Capitol Police, which concluded that Byrd had acted lawfully under the circumstances.
According to that internal review, the officer’s actions “may have prevented serious injury or death,” given that members of Congress and staffers remained trapped in nearby areas during the breach.
Despite those findings, Babbitt’s family pressed forward with civil litigation. They argued that Babbitt’s death was an unjust use of deadly force and that no lawful justification existed for the shooting. The lawsuit asserted that she was not armed and did not pose any danger to officers or lawmakers.
The legal filing emphasized that Babbitt “was not part of a group or for any unlawful or nefarious purpose.” Her family maintained that she simply passed into a restricted area without any threatening intent or violent behavior.
In defense of Lt. Byrd, his attorney, Mark E. Schamel, responded to ongoing questions surrounding the officer’s decision. “Consistent with the most recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the use of force by officers,” Schamel stated, “Lieutenant Byrd did exactly what he was supposed to have done that day to protect the elected officials he was sworn to protect.”
Before the news of the settlement surfaced, the case had been scheduled for a jury trial in July 2026. That timeline would have placed the legal showdown after the 2024 presidential election and well into the next term of any incoming administration.
Instead, if finalized, the nearly $5 million agreement would resolve the dispute outside the courtroom and avoid a prolonged and potentially politically charged trial. Legal experts anticipate further details to emerge once a filing of the finalized settlement takes place in federal court. For now, both parties have refrained from public comment pending official court confirmation. The judge’s directive for an update suggests a finalized agreement could be imminent.
FBI Director Kash Patel made explosive allegations against former FBI leadership during an exclusive television interview, suggesting a calculated effort to deceive the American public regarding investigations into Donald Trump.
According to Fox News, Patel, appearing alongside Deputy Director Dan Bongino on "Sunday Morning Futures," characterized previous FBI leaders' actions as the "biggest D.C. deception game" ever witnessed, particularly regarding the handling of investigations into Trump and Hillary Clinton.
The FBI director specifically pointed to the bureau's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation as evidence of institutional bias. Patel accused former FBI officials, including James Comey, of overstepping their authority by making prosecutorial decisions that should have been left to the Department of Justice.
Patel leveled serious accusations against his predecessors, including James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok. He claimed these former officials deliberately misled both the courts and the American public while weaponizing the bureau for political purposes.
The current FBI director alleged that previous leadership utilized taxpayer funds, potentially illegally, to operate their agenda. He further claimed they concealed crucial evidence from the court during various investigations.
Documents related to the controversial Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which examined potential ties between Trump and Russia, are reportedly being released to Congress without redactions. Patel emphasized this move as part of his commitment to transparency.
During the interview with host Maria Bartiromo, Patel revealed that new agency leadership has discovered additional information about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. He promised significant revelations in the coming weeks.
FBI Director Patel stated:
That's how vindictive and vicious the former leadership structure here was. Not only did they bastardize the FISA process and lie to the American public, they withheld and hid documentation and put it in rooms where people weren't supposed to look. It's a good thing we're here now to clean it up, and you're about to see a wave of transparency… Just give us about a week or two.
The interview also addressed the FBI's relationship with the Department of Justice under current Attorney General Pam Bondi, emphasizing improved coordination between the agencies.
Patel emphasized that restoring public confidence in the FBI remains a top priority for the current leadership. He acknowledged the damage done to the bureau's reputation by previous administrators but expressed optimism about its future.
The FBI director highlighted the importance of congressional oversight in this process, noting ongoing collaboration with legislators to ensure complete accountability. He stressed that transparency would be key to rebuilding trust.
Recent developments suggest a significant shift in how the FBI handles sensitive investigations and internal documentation. These changes mark a departure from previous practices under former leadership.
FBI Director Kash Patel alleged former bureau leaders orchestrated what he termed the "biggest D.C. deception game" against President Trump, promising imminent revelations about past investigations.
The accusations primarily focus on the handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Working alongside Deputy Director Dan Bongino and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Patel pledged to release unredacted documents to Congress within weeks. These developments suggest a potentially significant shift in understanding past FBI operations and decision-making processes under previous leadership.