I should excuse me for interrupting, but I’m going to run out of time.
You’ve seen most of the files.
Uh who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to besides himself? >> Himself? There is no credible information.
None.
If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals.
And the information we have, again, is limited.
>> So the answer is no one? >> For the information that we have.
>> In the files? >> In the case file.
>> Okay.
>> You just heard one of the most striking statements ever made at the Senate Judiciary Committee.
12 minutes.
That is all the time Senator John Kennedy needed to put the new FBI director, Kash Patel, to the ultimate test.
Moving seamlessly from praising the agency’s rapid response times to questioning controversial million-dollar settlement payouts.
Kennedy masterfully built a strategic line of questioning.
And when the highly sensitive topic of the Epstein files was finally brought to the table, the promise of a fully transparent agency met a massive roadblock.
How can an organization with the resources to apprehend a high-profile suspect in just 33 hours claim to have no credible information regarding the wider network of one of the most notorious criminal cases in modern history.
It leaves many wondering if the political establishment has truly been reformed or if it simply has new management.
Let’s rewind the clock 12 minutes to see exactly how this congressional master class unfolded.
Every master of debate knows that to take down a tightly defended witness, you can’t attack right out of the gate.
You have to lift them up.
You have to make them feel proud, safe, and off guard.
Senator Kennedy opened with a shower of praise for the FBI’s crime-solving efficiency.
>> Mr.
Director, um you and the FBI working with uh state and local law enforcement officials in Utah have caught the assassin of Mr.
Charlie Clark.
Is that right? >> We have a suspect, yes, sir.
>> And you did that within 48 hours, did you not? >> 33 hours.
>> 33 hours.
Congratulations.
We’ve had other political assassinations.
Back in uh back in June uh an assassin assassinated uh Representative Melissa Hoffmann Mr.
Hoffmann, Senator John Hoffmann and Mrs.
Hoffmann in Minnesota.
Uh you and the FBI and Minnesota state and local law enforcement officials caught the assassin within 48 hours, did you not? >> I believe that timeline’s correct, Senator.
>> Congratulations.
Sometimes we we uh we miss the forest for the trees.
Good work.
Um Did did Mr.
Clark’s ass- assassin act alone? >> As I’ve said since the beginning, Senator, it is very much an ongoing investigation and um I can’t speak to the state charges.
That’s for the state to address on their own, but we are providing them with the same investigatory findings reporting the department.
And as I noted to Senator uh I believe it was uh Cornyn or Hawley that there are a number of individuals that are currently being investigated and interrogated and a number yet to be investigated and interrogated specific to that chat row.
So, we are very much in our ongoing posture of investigation.
>> So, others could have been involved.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Do you see the deeper intention here? Kennedy is establishing a baseline.
He is forcing Patel to proudly admit that when the FBI truly wants to work, it possess a massive intelligence machine.
They can find a hiding political assassin in just 33 hours.
They can expose the entire network through a secret chat room.
By forcing Patel to acknowledge the excellence and limitless capabilities of his agency, Kennedy preemptively eliminates any excuses of operational incompetence for the later part of the questioning.
If you can solve a case in 33 hours, there’s no reason you can’t find the truth in other cases.
And the foundation has been laid.
Now, Kennedy starts digging into the rot.
After stroking the FBI’s ego, Kennedy suddenly swerves into one of the agency’s biggest stains under the previous administration.
The blatant politicization and million-dollar rewards for those who undermined the Constitution.
>> I asked you this last time you were here.
Cash, you remember Mr.
Peter Strzok and Ms.
Lisa Page? >> Yes, sir.
>> They were Mr.
Strzok was an FBI agent.
Ms.
Page was an FBI lawyer.
They were both uh very aggressive anti-Trump political activists who allowed their political opinions to affect their work at the FBI.
Is that a fair statement? >> I believe their text messages and the testimony that was secured by the OIG and DOJ speaks for itself.
>> In fact, um Mr.
Strzok and Ms.
Page were having an extramarital affair and at one point, um Ms.
Page texted Mr.
Strzok, quote, “Trump’s not ever going to be president, right? Right?” And Mr.
Strzok replied, “No.
No, he won’t.
We will stop it.
End quote.
Um Ms.
Page resigned from the FBI.
Mr.
Struck was fired.
They promptly sued the federal government and the FBI and Justice Department for releasing their emails which revealed all this.
The FBI settled that lawsuit for $1.
2 million.
They gave Mr.
Struck $1.
2 million cash.
Gave Ms.
Page, who resigned.
She wasn’t fired.
She resigned.
She quit.
Gave her $800,000.
Who at the FBI made that decision to give them money? >> Uh that settlement was reached in the Biden administration when my predecessor was the director.
>> Who? You saying that Chris Wray did? >> The only people that can decide that settlement are the uh Attorney General in conjunction with the director and the administration.
>> Okay.
So, you’re telling me that Attorney General Garland and Director Wray decided to give them the money.
Is that right? >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay.
>> This is the peak of absurdity in the executive system.
Agents who used federal power to interfere in an election, people who plotted to stop a presidential candidate not only avoided prison but walked out the door with $2 million of the people’s tax money.
Patel answers very articulately.
He quickly points the finger at Merrick Garland and Chris Wray.
He wants to show that that’s the predecessor’s trash, not mine.
When Kennedy presses on whether Patel found instances of the FBI being weaponized to push a political agenda under Biden, Patel begins raising a defensive shield built on statistics.
>> When you took over the FBI, did you find instances of where uh the Biden administration had politicized the FBI to a prosecutor’s political agenda.
>> Well, I won’t speak for other people.
Having been a target of that weaponization, having been a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, having had the Justice Department weaponized against me for making the findings and leading the investigation of Russiagate, I know what that feels like and that’s why as the FBI director I’m committed to not ever have it that ever happen again, but I’m also committed to fully investigating what was done and that matter is still ongoing.
>> So, I assume I take it your answer is yes.
>> Yes, sir.
>> And you’re firing those people, is that right? >> Anyone that politicizes their job at the FBI will not work at the FBI.
>> Notice how Patel uses bureaucratic jargon and massive numbers.
23,000 arrests, enough fentanyl to kill a third of America.
It’s a perfect PR pitch.
He paints a picture of a new, clean, hard-working FBI entirely separated from politics.
But Kennedy is an old wolf of the Senate.
He knows that street crime statistics are just a smoke screen to cover up the crimes of the elite.
And right now, as Patel has declared himself the champion of transparency and justice, Kennedy delivers the decisive blow.
The trap officially springs, bringing us back to the opening moment of the video.
Closing the PR curtain, Kennedy points his spear at the name no one in Washington wants to mention.
>> All right.
I want to ask you about the Epstein files.
Have you uh Have you seen the Epstein files? >> I have not reviewed the entirety of it myself, but uh a good amount.
>> Okay.
Um would it be fair to say that Mr.
Epstein trafficked young women, including in some instances minors, for sex to himself.
>> That was specifically the allegations in the 2018 indictment in the Southern District of New York.
>> Okay.
Who else did he traffic these young women to? >> In terms of what the investigation again, going back to 2008, Mr.
Acosta, who limited the investigation and limited the search warrants and limited the parameters of the investigation, the only thing we are able to speak to publicly because he was given a non-prosecution agreement by Mr.
Acosta, is that first time period from, I believe, don’t call me on this, ’97 to 2001-ish.
And then when the Trump administration courageously reopened it.
>> That is exactly when Kennedy interrupts and bluntly asks the question all of America wants to know.
And Patel’s answer, no credible information.
The man who just proudly boasted that his FBI could scour the internet to catch an assassin in 33 hours is now standing before the US Senate declaring that based on the files of the world’s greatest domestic intelligence agency Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire with his own private island, private jets, and a global power network, operated that massive sex trafficking ring solely
to service himself.
Patel’s confidence vanishes, he starts making excuses.
And listen to how this new director sings the old tune of the bureaucracy.
>> Uh, so you’re releasing them a little bit at a time, is that correct? >> We’re releasing as much as we can, um, but we are limited by three different court orders, and the department went back to each of those judges to waive those court orders or have them lifted, and each of those judges declined.
>> Will you release all of them or at least as many as you can? >> We will release everything we are legally permitted to do so.
We are continuing to work with the House on the subpoena request.
We have substantially required with it complied with it, but we will continue to release whatever we are legally permitted to do so.
>> Okay.
I strongly encourage you to do that.
Cash, I don’t this is just not going to go away.
Um and I think the the central question for the American people is this.
They know that Epstein trafficked young women for sex to himself.
They want to know who, if anyone else, he trafficked these young women to.
And that’s a very fair question.
I want to know that answer.
And uh I I think you’re going to have to to do more to satisfy the American people’s understandable curiosity in that regard.
>> Mr.
Chairman, may I just respond to that? I agree, Senator.
And what we have done and just to remind folks the Epstein case files existed in the two prior administrations, in the Obama administration and the Biden administration.
They didn’t release anything.
And there was President Trump in the first administration that renewed charges against Mr.
Epstein.
And I know it’s a little complicated to understand.
Uh but what exists in the Epstein case files was a direct result of the limited search warrants from 2006 and 7, which hamstrung future investigations because of the non-prosecution agreement.
And multiple administrations had the opportunity to look at the entirety of that case file and recommend prosecutions against anyone that was trafficked under Mr.
Epstein and anyone that participated in that trafficking.
And the only person to bring charges was the prior administration against Mr.
Epstein.
Now, I am not saying that others were not trafficked and others were not involved.
What I am telling you is that based on the information we have, and we have continuously and publicly asked for the public to come forward with more information if there is, we’ll look at it, but based on credible information, we have released all credible information, and the information that the Department of Justice and the FBI never releases is information on investigations that are not credible.
And we don’t release the names of victims who weren’t credible, but in the same time, we don’t release the names of victims who were credible.
And so, the information That’s by law.
And so, the information we are releasing now is historic, and it is also to the maximum capacity that the law allows.
>> And there it is.
That is the endless loop of the elite unit party.
Patel is a wrong when he says the 2006 investigation and Alex Acosta’s non-prosecution agreement are a historical disgrace.
Nor is he wrong to criticize the Obama and Biden administrations for sweeping everything under the rug.
But when Kash Patel was elevated to this position, the people expected someone who would smash that machine and shatter the court orders covering up crimes, not someone who stands up to explain why the machine’s brakes are still working perfectly.
They use record-breaking numbers of drug and gang seizures to lull us to sleep.
They are ready to splash a political assassin across the front pages in 33 hours to prove their efficiency.
But when it touches Epstein’s little black book, when it touches billionaires and the political elite, the world’s largest law enforcement apparatus suddenly turns into an administrative agency bound by three different courts.
Orders in the course of no credible information.
Senator Kennedy was right.
This truth is not going to disappear.
Now, millions of Americans are witnessing the clearest reality.
The swamp isn’t just a location in Washington.
It is a mutual protection system.
It seems the management of that system has changed, but the get-out-of-jail-free cards for the powerful are still being stamped and accepted.
Kash Patel promised to bring a new FBI, but based on his answer about the Epstein case, ask yourself, is this truly a new era of transparency or just the old FBI with a new haircut? Thank you for watching this analysis.
Don’t forget to leave your thoughts in the comments.
Do you believe the FBI truly couldn’t find a single other credible name in the Epstein case? See you in the next programs.
