Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
.-') _ .-') _
( OO ) ) ( OO ) )
.-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
' .--./ | \ | |\ | \ | |\
| |('-. | \| | )| \| | )
/_) |OO )| . |/ | . |/
|| |`-'| | |\ | | |\ |
(_' '--'\ | | \ | | | \ |
`-----' `--' `--' `--' `--'
lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
ARTICLE VIEW:
Takeaways from FBI Director Kash Patel’s testimony on Jeffrey Epstein
Analysis by Aaron Blake, CNN
Updated:
5:27 PM EDT, Wed September 17, 2025
Source: CNN
FBI Director Kash Patel this week became the first prominent Justice
Department official to since the Trump administration’s handling of
the Jeffrey Epstein files blew up in its face.
While Epstein was an occasional subplot during Patel’s testimony to
the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, it was a huge focus of his
appearance in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
The hearing got very heated at times as Democrats decided to go with a
scorched-earth approach and Patel responded in kind, leading to several
shouting matches.
After one Democrat said that the courts had called “bullsh*t” on
the administration’s strategy to try and get grand jury testimony
unsealed, Patel ultimately responded, “I’m going to borrow your
terminology and call bullsh*t on your entire career in Congress because
you’ve been a disgrace to the American people.”
At another point, Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington pressed
Patel repeatedly on whether he had ever met with Epstein’s victims.
The director again didn’t answer directly, eventually saying, “Any
insinuation by you or any people on your side that I am not manhunting
child predators and sex traffickers, just look at the stats.”
Here’s what to know from Patel’s testimony on Epstein:
Patel was repeatedly evasive on Trump
The director was repeatedly evasive when the subject turned to
President Donald Trump’s proximity to the files.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California asked Patel no fewer than
nine times whether he had told Attorney General Pam Bondi that
Trump’s name appeared in the Epstein files. Each time Patel declined
to directly answer the question.
He instead said there had been many conversations about the files and
noted the administration has released some documents with Trump’s
name in them. He later criticized Swalwell for not focusing more on
crime in his home state. But he never answered the question.
The question of how Trump was informed he was in the files is a
significant one. Trump initially falsely denied he was told he was in
the files, but we later learned It was what the files might reveal.
In another exchange, Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California asked Patel
whether Prince Andrew’s and Trump’s names were on an Epstein client
list. The DOJ has said there is no client list, but instead of citing
that denial, Patel instead responded that the FBI had already released
an index of names.
Vouched for Trump on one key point
But Patel was willing to address Trump’s proximity to Epstein in
another way – in a way beneficial to the president.
When Lieu asked him if there were any “photos of Trump with girls of
an uncertain age,” Patel responded, “No.”
But when pressed on how he knew that, Patel suggested it wasn’t from
his own review.
“Because that information would have been brought to light by
multiple administrations and FBI investigators over the course of the
last 20 years,” Patel said.
Trump has likewise argued that if there was anything bad in the files
that the Biden administration .
In fact, it’s not normal for administrations or the FBI to release
derogatory information about people who haven’t been charged with
crimes. As a counterpoint, Lieu noted that we only recently learned
about the in 2003.
Patel was cautious when asked about other Epstein trafficking victims
The big question most people have about Epstein is whether there is any
evidence he trafficked girls or women to other men.
A few answers Patel gave on that subject are worth reflecting on.
He seemed to suggest it was possible Epstein had done so, but that he
couldn’t say so definitively because there was no credible evidence
of it and/or because of the terms of a non-prosecution agreement
Epstein reached with US attorney Alex Acosta in the late 2000s.
On Tuesday, he said there was “no credible information” Epstein had
trafficked victims to other men.
But he caveated that by saying it was based on “the information that
we have.” He also made a point to cite how that non-prosecution
agreement limited the investigation and what he was “able to speak to
publicly.”
On Wednesday, Patel was asked a similar question. He emphasized that he
wasn’t ruling out the possibility.
“Let me make something crystal clear: I never said Jeffrey Epstein
didn’t traffic other people, other women, and there are not other
victims,” Patel said. “This is the investigation we were given from
2006, ’07, and ‘08, and the search warrants from 2006, ‘07, and
‘08. That’s what we’re working with.”
Later in the hearing, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky noted
that Epstein’s victims have alleged Epstein trafficked victims to at
least 20 men.
Ultimately, Patel suggested the information was deemed not credible
enough by prosecutors and suggested he wouldn’t share it.
“We are also not in the habit of releasing incredible information,”
Patel said. “That’s not what we do, but multiple authorities have
looked at the entirety of what we have.”
Answers like these emphasize how difficult it could be to satisfy those
who want full disclosure and suspect there’s more that lies beneath
the surface. And, of course, Patel was once among those who alleged a
massive coverup.
Democrats are going big on this issue
One thing Wednesday’s hearing made abundantly clear: Democrats intend
to push this issue long and hard.
One of the dilemmas in these hearings is there are often many subjects
lawmakers want to ask about, and you only get these top officials
testifying every once in a while. Patel’s for Charlie Kirk’s
assassin last week could have been fodder, too.
But after Senate Democrats largely glossed over the Epstein issue
Tuesday, House Democrats focused on it intently. Virtually all of them
asked about it, and they seemed to have a plan to touch on many
different facets of the issue.
Polling suggests Republican voters are more critical of the
administration’s handling of the Epstein files than any other issue,
with large numbers of them . And the House is also a central
battleground, given it’s where Massie’s threat of a discharge
petition is forcing GOP leaders’ and the administration’s hand in
turning over documents.
(That discharge petition could reach the to force the release of the
files, after a special election in Arizona that the Democrat is
expected to win.)
Their focus on pressing Patel over and over again led to a number of
tense scenes in which Patel responded by insulting the lawmakers. That
might appeal to Trump, who likes his officials to be combative in their
testimony. But there’s a real question about whether that’s what
the American people want to see, especially given how skeptical
they’ve been of the administration’s handling of this subject.
A particularly flippant moment
And one moment stands out on that front. It came when Patel, rather
remarkably, decided to commit to an investigation in real time.
Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida noted that Trump has denied
the legitimacy of the Epstein birthday letter signed in Trump’s name.
But the letter was turned over by Epstein’s estate.
So Moskowitz asked if the FBI would investigate Epstein’s estate for
furnishing an allegedly “fake document with the president’s
signature” linking Trump to Epstein.
Moskowitz and many others are obviously skeptical of Trump’s denials,
given . So the idea was to demonstrate that even the FBI didn’t take
Trump’s denials seriously.
Patel at first downplayed the idea, saying, “On what basis?”
Moskowitz repeated that Trump was basically claiming Epstein’s estate
released a fake document that made Trump look bad.
And quickly, Patel suddenly agreed to investigate.
“Sure, I’ll do it,” he said.
That Patel so quickly relented – however seriously he intends to
actually investigate – spoke to how much pressure has been brought to
bear.
<- back to index
You are viewing proxied material from codevoid.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.