John Kennedy Presses Kash Patel Until His Epstein Defense Starts Unraveling

[0:02] Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to besides himself? [0:09] Himself. There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case [0:15] yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the information we have, again, is limited. [0:20] So the answer is no one? [0:23] For the information that we have. [0:26] In the files? [0:27] In the case file. [0:28] OK. [0:28] Senator John Kennedy just asked the question millions of Americans have been demanding [0:32] answers to for years, and FBI Director Kash Patel delivered a cold, stunning response. [0:38] No one. That's it. That's the whole file, according to Kash Patel under oath, in front [0:42] of the United States Senate. Here's what makes that answer dangerous. It's not that it's [0:47] necessarily a lie. It's that it lets one man close a case that decades of evidence, dozens [0:52] of victims coming forward, and two federal investigations never came close to closing. [0:58] Jeffrey Epstein built an empire of exploitation. A private island. The infamous Lolita Express [1:03] with flight logs running into the thousands, a black book with well over 1,500 names of [1:08] the rich and powerful, and dozens of women who say they were trafficked, some of them minors. [1:14] Yet Patel claims there is simply no credible information about anyone else. [1:18] Who is currently holding, this is way off the topic, but who has Jeffrey Epstein's... [1:24] Black book? [1:24] Black book. [1:25] FBI. [1:27] But who? That is, I mean, there's... [1:30] Oh, that's under direct control of the director of the FBI. [1:34] But the black book, it's not just sitting. I mean, that's, that's Hoover power times 10. [1:43] And to me, that's a thing I think President Trump should run on. On day one, roll out the [1:48] black book. [1:49] Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana spent this hearing walking Patel through a credibility [1:53] gauntlet before he ever got to Epstein. By the time Kennedy dropped the hammer, Patel had [1:59] already admitted things that should make every American distrust the answer he gave next. [2:04] Kennedy built this exchange like a prosecutor, not a talk show host. What exactly did Patel [2:09] admit? How did Kennedy trap him in his own words? Stick with me, you're not going to believe [2:13] how this unfolds. If you want the full unfiltered truth on stories the mainstream won't touch, [2:18] hit subscribe, turn on notifications, and let's dive in. [2:21] Mr. Director, you and the FBI working with state and local law enforcement officials in Utah have [2:40] caught the assassin of Mr. Charlie Kirk. Is that right? [2:46] We have a suspect, yes, sir. [2:48] And you did that within 48 hours, did you not? [2:52] 33 hours. [2:53] 33 hours. Congratulations. [2:55] We've had other political assassinations. Back in June, an assassin assassinated Representative [3:08] Melissa Hoffman, Mr. Hoffman, Senator John Hoffman, and Mrs. Hoffman in Minnesota. You and the FBI [3:20] and Minnesota state and local law enforcement officials caught the assassin within 48 hours, [3:29] did you not? [3:29] I believe that timeline is correct, Senator. [3:33] Congratulations. Sometimes we miss the forest for the trees. Good work. [3:47] Did Mr. Kirk's assassin act alone? [3:52] As I've said since the beginning, Senator, it is very much an ongoing investigation. [3:57] And I can't speak to the state charges. That's for the state to address on their own. But we are [4:02] providing them with the same investigatory findings reporting the department. And as I noted to Senator, [4:07] I believe it was Cornyn or Holly, that there are a number of individuals that are currently being [4:13] investigated and interrogated and a number yet to be investigated and interrogated specific to that [4:17] chat room. So we are very much in our ongoing posture of investigation. [4:23] So others could have been involved. Yes, sir. Think about that for a second. In just 33 hours, [4:31] the FBI under Kash Patel tracked down the assassin of Charlie Kirk. They solved another high-profile [4:36] political assassination in Minnesota in 48 hours. Congratulations. Good work. The system can move [4:43] with ruthless efficiency when it wants to. But when the subject turns to Jeffrey Epstein, the man who [4:48] operated a sprawling sex trafficking ring for decades, suddenly everything slows to a crawl. [4:53] The same agency that cracks major cases in days claims it has almost nothing on the powerful men [4:58] who allegedly benefited from Epstein's nightmare operation. [5:01] Do you really think I wouldn't give that to you if it existed? I'm working my ass off, [5:07] along with the leadership at the Bureau and DOJ, to get you what we're allowed to give you. [5:11] And we're going to give you every single thing we have and can. [5:15] This contrast is impossible to ignore, and it should trouble every American. Patel sits there, [5:20] director of the FBI, with full access to every file, and yet when pressed on the biggest scandal [5:25] involving the elite in modern history, the answer remains limited information. It's almost as if [5:31] the agency can summon lightning speed for certain targets, but turns into a bureaucratic fortress [5:35] when the trail leads toward real power and influence. Kennedy wasn't just asking random questions. [5:41] He was setting the stage, showing the public exactly how capable the FBI can be when it chooses to be. [5:47] So why does that same capability seem to vanish the moment Epstein's network of enablers comes into focus? [5:54] Patel's own admissions about past politicization make this even more damning. [5:58] If the FBI was weaponized before, is it still protecting certain people now? [6:03] But first, Kennedy wanted the committee to understand exactly what kind of institution Patel says he inherited. [6:09] Um, I asked you this last time you were here. Cash, you remember Mr. Peter Strzok and Ms. Lisa Page? [6:18] Yes, sir. [6:19] They were, Mr. Strzok was an FBI agent. Ms. Page was an FBI lawyer. They were both very aggressive, [6:30] anti-Trump political activists who allowed their political opinions to affect their work at the FBI. [6:38] Is that a fair statement? [6:39] I believe their text messages and the testimony that was secured by the OIG and DOJ speak for themselves. [6:44] In fact, um, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page were having an extramarital affair. And at one point, um, Ms. Page texted Mr. Strzok, quote, [6:56] quote, Trump's not ever going to be president, right? Right. And Mr. Strzok replied, no, no, he won't. [7:05] We will stop it. End quote. Um, Ms. Page resigned from the FBI. Mr. Strzok was fired. [7:17] They promptly sued the federal government and the FBI and Justice Department for releasing their emails, which revealed all of this. [7:26] The FBI settled that lawsuit for $1.2 million. Gave Mr. Strzok $1.2 million cash. Gave Ms. Page, who resigned. [7:42] She wasn't fired. She resigned. She quit. Gave her $800,000. Who, if the FBI made that decision to give them money? [7:50] Uh, that settlement was reached in the Biden administration when my predecessor was the director. [7:56] Who? Are you saying that Chris Ray did? [8:01] The only people that can decide that settlement are the, uh, attorney general in conjunction with the director and the administration. [8:08] Okay. So you're telling me that attorney general Garland and director Ray decided to give them the money. [8:14] Yes, sir. Yes, sir. [8:15] Now, when, when you, uh, when you, you took over the FBI, did you find instances of where, uh, under the Biden administration, the FBI had, uh, had weaponized the agency to push the, uh, political beliefs of President Biden? [8:42] Sorry, the last part. [8:43] When you took over the FBI, did you find instances of where, uh, the Biden administration had politicized the FBI to, uh, prosecute its political agenda? [8:56] 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. [9:11] I know what that feels like, and that's why, as the FBI director, I'm committing to not ever have that ever happen again, but I'm also committed to fully investigating what was done, and that matter is still ongoing. [9:22] So I assume, I take it your answer is yes. [9:25] Yes, sir. [9:26] And you're firing those people, is that right? [9:28] Anyone that politicizes their job at the FBI will not work at the FBI. [9:33] Okay. [9:35] You've heard some of my colleagues, either implicitly or, or otherwise suggest that you have politicized the FBI to, uh, to, to prosecute the political beliefs of President Trump. [9:50] Is that true? [9:50] I don't know how that can be true when the stats that I cited to include the 23,000 arrests, 6,000 weapons seized, 1,600 gang and criminal enterprise organizations, 4,700 children found and rescued, more enough fentanyl seized to kill a third of America. [10:09] The men and women of the FBI are now in an apolitical mission, and this is why the numbers are historic in seven months. [10:15] Have you fired people because they voted for Vice President Harris? [10:19] I don't ask people who they vote for, and neither does the FBI. [10:22] Okay. [10:23] But you've given people polygraphs, have you not? [10:25] Many people in the FBI take polys. [10:27] The FBI does that all the time. [10:29] Yes, sir. [10:29] Does it not? [10:30] Yes, sir. [10:31] For a long time, is that correct? [10:33] Decades. [10:34] All right. [10:34] Patel just confirmed, on the record, that the multi-million dollar settlement for Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, those infamous anti-Trump FBI lovers who swore they would stop Trump from ever becoming president, [10:45] was personally approved by Attorney General Merrick Garland and Director Christopher Wray during the Biden administration. [10:53] He openly criticized that weaponization of the FBI under the previous regime and promised the American people it would never happen again under his watch. [11:01] Yet the moment Senator Kennedy turns to the Jeffrey Epstein case, perhaps the clearest example of elite protection in modern American history, Patel falls back on the same old excuses. [11:11] Limited files, limited warrants, limited justice. [11:15] This is the ultimate test of credibility, and Kash Patel is failing it. [11:20] Epstein didn't traffic those girls by himself. [11:22] He ran a sophisticated operation with private planes, cameras built into nearly every room of his properties, and a network that reportedly reached the highest levels of power. [11:31] The 2008 non-prosecution deal Alex Acosta brokered didn't just hand Epstein a sweetheart sentence of 13 months with daily work release. [11:39] It shielded unnamed co-conspirators from ever being charged and crippled any real investigation for years. [11:46] Patel knows this. [11:48] He has the files. [11:48] He has the authority to tear down the walls Acosta built. [11:53] Instead of vowing real accountability, he defends the limits of a broken system. [11:57] If Patel can root out political bias inside his own bureau in one breath, why does that same nerve vanish the moment the trail leads toward powerful men? [12:06] The double standard is glaring, and the victims continue to pay the price. [12:10] Kennedy is about to expose exactly that contradiction in devastating fashion. [12:14] I want to ask you about the Epstein files. [12:16] Have you seen the Epstein files? [12:21] I have not reviewed the entirety of it myself, but a good amount. [12:28] Would it be fair to say that Mr. Epstein trafficked young women, including in some instances minors, for sex to himself? [12:45] That was specifically the allegations in the 2018 indictment in the Southern District of New York. [12:54] Who else did he traffic these young women to? [12:56] 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, [13:09] the only thing we are able to speak to publicly, because he was given a non-prosecution agreement by Mr. Acosta, [13:16] is that first time period from, I believe, don't quote me on this, 97 to 2001-ish, [13:22] and then when the Trump administration courageously reopened it. [13:24] Ash, excuse me if I'm interrupting, but I'm going to run out of time. [13:28] You've seen most of the files. [13:31] Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to besides himself? [13:37] Himself. There is no credible information. None. [13:42] If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. [13:47] And the information we have, again, is limited. [13:49] So the answer is no one? [13:51] For the information that we have. [13:54] In the files? [13:55] In the case file. [13:56] Okay. [13:57] Patel's answer lands like a hammer. [13:59] Himself. There is no credible information. None. [14:03] If there were, he says he would bring the case yesterday. [14:06] Let's be very clear about what this really means. [14:08] According to the director of the FBI, [14:11] with access to every Epstein file and federal possession, [14:14] the mountain of evidence accumulated over decades simply doesn't count. [14:18] More than a thousand victims. [14:20] Sworn testimony in civil court. [14:22] Flight logs showing powerful men flying on the Lolita Express to Epstein's private island. [14:27] A black book with over 1,700 names of the rich, famous, and politically connected. [14:33] Hidden cameras in Epstein's properties that many believe were used for blackmail. [14:37] Yet Patel looks the Senate in the eye and says there is no credible information pointing to anyone else. [14:43] This raises three disturbing possibilities. [14:46] First, the original investigation was so deliberately crippled by the 2008 Acosta deal [14:51] that real evidence was never collected. [14:53] Second, the FBI is applying such a narrow definition of credible [14:57] that it excludes victim testimony given under oath. [15:00] Or third and most troubling, Patel is choosing to accept the limits of a corrupt system [15:04] rather than challenge them. [15:06] Kash Patel has the power and the mandate to change this. [15:09] He criticized past politicization, yet here he defends the very barriers [15:13] that have protected Epstein's network for years. [15:17] The non-prosecution agreement didn't just let Epstein serve weekends in jail. [15:21] It gave immunity to co-conspirators and shut down broader prosecutions. [15:25] Multiple administrations, including previous ones, failed to fix it. [15:29] Now Patel has the chance to deliver real transparency, but instead offers the same tired explanation. [15:36] The American people are not stupid. [15:38] They see the double standard. [15:39] They see powerful men who partied on Epstein's island and flew on his plane still walking free [15:44] while the victims' voices are dismissed as not credible. [15:47] Kennedy asked the question the country has been asking for years. [15:51] Patel's answer does not satisfy it and the public knows it. [15:54] The pressure for full disclosure is only going to grow. [15:57] Now, President Trump has deferred to the FBI and the Department of Justice with respect to the Epstein records. [16:06] He says it is your call about releasing them. [16:10] And I understand that the department and the agency have decided to release them in cooperation with the House committee. [16:19] Is that correct? [16:20] Yes, sir. [16:22] So you're releasing them a little bit at a time. [16:25] Is that correct? [16:25] We're releasing as much as we can, but we are limited by three different court orders, [16:33] and the department went back to each of those judges to waive those court orders or have them lifted, [16:38] and each of those judges declined. [16:40] Will you release all of them or at least as many as you can? [16:44] We will release everything. [16:45] We are legally permitted to do so. [16:47] We are continuing to work with the House on the subpoena request. [16:49] We have substantially required with it, complied with it, but we will continue to release whatever we are legally permitted to do so. [16:58] Okay. [16:58] I strongly encourage you to do that, Cash. [17:02] I don't, this issue is not going to go away. [17:03] And I think the central question for the American people is this. [17:10] They know that Epstein trafficked young women for sex to himself. [17:19] They want to know who, if anyone else, he trafficked these young women to. [17:26] And that's a very fair question. [17:28] I want to know that answer. [17:29] And I think you're going to have to do more to satisfy the American people's understandable curiosity in that regard. [17:41] Mr. Chairman, may I just respond to that? [17:43] I agree, Senator. [17:45] And what we have done, just to remind folks, the Epstein case files existed in the two prior administrations, [17:54] in the Obama administration and the Biden administration, and they didn't release anything. [17:57] And there was President Trump in the first administration that renewed charges against Mr. Epstein. [18:03] And I know it's a little complicated to understand, but what exists in the Epstein case files was a direct result of the limited search warrants from 2006 and 2007, [18:17] which hamstrung future investigations because of the non-prosecution agreement. [18:23] 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 [18:33] and anyone that participated in that trafficking. [18:36] And the only person to bring charges was the prior administration against Mr. Epstein. [18:40] Now, I am not saying that others were not trafficked and others were not involved. [18:45] 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. [18:53] If there is, we'll look at it. [18:55] 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. [19:07] And we don't release the names of victims who weren't credible, but at the same time, we don't release the names of victims who were credible. [19:13] And so the information – that's by law. [19:15] And so the information we are releasing now is historic, and it is also to the maximum capacity that the law allows. [19:22] And I know that's not going to satisfy many, many, many people. [19:26] But if they wanted it done right, then the investigation from its origination should have been done right, [19:32] and he should not have been given a get-out-of-jail-free card to do jail on the weekends for 12 hours a day. [19:37] And he should have been investigated fully for the entirety of his crime and criminal enterprise, not just from 1997 to 2001. [19:45] Kennedy never raised his voice. [19:47] He never accused Patel of lying. [19:49] He simply stated the obvious. [19:51] This issue is not going away. [19:53] The essential question for the American people remains painfully simple. [19:56] They know Epstein abused those young women for himself. [19:59] They want to know who else he delivered them to. [20:01] Patel agreed it was a fair question, yet spent minutes circling back to court orders, [20:05] prior administrations, and the limitations of the original investigation. [20:09] In the end, his defense still failed to deliver the one thing the public demands, [20:14] real answers and real accountability. [20:18] This moment exposes something deeper than one hearing. [20:21] It shows how even a new FBI director, despite bold promises to end weaponization, [20:26] can still fall into the familiar pattern of shielding the powerful behind bureaucratic walls. [20:31] The victims who survived Epstein's network deserve more than carefully worded deflections. [20:36] The American people, who have watched elite after elite escape scrutiny, deserve the full truth. [20:42] Kash Patel now holds the responsibility. [20:45] The files are in his hands. [20:46] The choice is his. [20:48] Will he truly break from the past? [20:50] Or will the same old protections remain in place? [20:53] What do you think? [20:54] Does Patel's answer satisfy you? [20:56] Or is it time for complete transparency no matter who it touches? [21:00] Drop your thoughts in the comments below. [21:02] If you want more hard-hitting breakdowns the mainstream avoids, [21:06] subscribe, hit the notification bell. [21:08] We'll keep demanding answers. [21:10] See you in the next one.