Ted Lieu Plays Epstein Tape in Hearing — Kash Patel Freezes for 67 Seconds

[0:00] I'm going to play for you a video clip of what Michael Wolff said Epstein told him was in the safe [0:06] and what he showed the author was in the safe. [0:10] Okay, so that's great. [0:11] So wouldn't it be great if FBI subpoenaed the estate of Jeffrey Epstein for all that information? [0:16] The estate is under no obligation to provide that material even pursuant to a subpoena. [0:20] That's a great point. [0:21] Yeah, that's just false. [0:23] Okay. [0:23] That's just false. [0:24] You're the FBI. [0:25] You can subpoena the information from the estate and you better do that. [0:28] Kash Patel thought he was ready for that hearing. [0:31] Hours of questions were already behind him. [0:33] Epstein files, court orders, what was released, what wasn't. [0:37] He had his answers down cold. [0:39] Then Ted Lieu did something different. [0:41] He didn't bring a document. [0:42] He didn't argue the law. [0:44] He pressed play on a video. [0:46] A journalist, a safe, and a story about what Jeffrey Epstein allegedly kept hidden inside. [0:51] What followed wasn't about legal frameworks or protective orders. [0:55] It was about three things Patel could not clearly answer. [0:57] A journalist with 100 hours of Epstein recordings the FBI may not have fully pursued. [1:03] A safe full of photographs Patel said were not there. [1:06] And a client list with two names he would not confirm or deny. [1:09] Five minutes, three unanswered questions, and a record that now includes all of it. [1:14] Before we get into it, a quick note. [1:16] We've touched on this story before, but with new details coming out, and everything suddenly back in focus, [1:21] it's clear there were gaps that needed a closer look. [1:23] So, this is an update. [1:25] If you're new here, subscribe. [1:26] We break these down as they develop, without the noise. [1:29] Have you asked to talk to Michael Wolff? [1:33] You raise a great point. [1:34] I haven't personally asked to talk to Michael Wolff. [1:36] Has the FBI asked? [1:36] But the FBI, I'll get back to you if the FBI specifically asked ever. [1:40] So, Michael Wolff has about 100 hours of testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. [1:43] Wouldn't it be good for the FBI to interview Michael Wolff? [1:47] I'm not saying they haven't. [1:48] I just don't know. [1:49] Has FBI subpoenaed the tapes that Michael Wolff has conducted of Jeffrey Epstein? [1:54] I don't know. [1:54] Ted Lieu represents California in the House of Representatives. [1:58] Before he entered politics, he was a JAG officer in the United States Air Force, [2:03] a military lawyer who conducted investigations and prosecuted cases in a system where evasive answers do not fly. [2:10] He later reached the rank of colonel in the Air Force Reserve before retiring in 2021. [2:15] He holds degrees from Stanford and Georgetown Law. [2:18] He sits on the House Judiciary Committee, which is where this exchange took place during Patel's second consecutive day of congressional testimony. [2:26] That background matters. [2:27] Lou is not a politician asking general oversight questions, hoping for a usable clip. [2:32] He is someone who has spent a significant portion of his career in rooms where the person across the table is expected to know the facts of their own case. [2:40] When Patel said he did not know something, Lou heard, [2:43] that differently than most people in that room. [2:45] Lou started with the basics. [2:47] The FBI searched Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan residence in 2019, Patel confirmed. [2:53] Among the items found was a safe. [2:55] Patel said he did not have the catalogue of evidence in front of him. [2:59] Think about that for a moment. [3:01] The director of the FBI, testifying about the most publicly discussed case under his oversight, [3:06] does not have the evidence catalogue in front of him. [3:09] Lou pressed. [3:10] The FBI found a safe, correct? [3:12] Patel said he would accept Lou's representation. [3:14] Not a yes, not a confirmation based on his own knowledge. [3:18] He would accept the congressman's representation of what his own agency found. [3:23] Inside that safe, agents discovered a collection of photographs. [3:26] Patel gave the same answer. [3:27] I'll accept your representation, I don't know. [3:31] Lou made the point, plainly. [3:32] It was all over the media at the time. [3:35] The New York Times reported it on July 8th, 2019. [3:39] A trove of photographs found in a safe at Epstein's Manhattan mansion, [3:43] disclosed as part of the charges filed against him that year. [3:46] This was not obscure information. [3:47] It was public record, front page news at the time. [3:51] And the FBI director said he did not know. [3:53] That pattern, I'll accept your representation, established something important [3:57] before Lou even got to his main questions. [4:00] Because a director who accepts a congressman's account of his own agency's evidence catalogue [4:04] is a director who either has not reviewed the case closely [4:07] or has decided not to say so on the record. [4:10] Either way, it set a tone. [4:12] And Lou was about to use it. [4:13] Lou then introduced Michael Wolfe. [4:15] Wolfe is one of the most recognized journalists in Washington, [4:19] best known for Fire and Fury, his account of the first Trump White House. [4:23] He is also, by his own account, the journalist who spent the most time [4:26] with Jeffrey Epstein before Epstein's arrest. [4:29] Wolfe estimates he conducted approximately 100 hours of interviews with Epstein over several years. [4:35] He has released portions of those recordings publicly. [4:37] In one of them, Epstein describes Donald Trump as his closest friend for a decade. [4:41] Lou played a clip of Wolfe describing a specific moment [4:45] from his time with Epstein, in which Epstein went to his safe [4:48] and produced a series of photographs, spreading them out like playing cards [4:52] and showing Wolfe what he claimed they contained. [4:54] Lou paused the clip. [4:56] Then he asked Patel whether there are any photographs [4:58] showing Donald Trump with individuals connected to Epstein's operation. [5:02] Patel said no. [5:03] Lou asked how he knew. [5:05] Patel said, [5:05] That information would have been brought to light by multiple administrations [5:09] and FBI investigators over the course of the last 20 years. [5:12] Lou stopped him there. [5:13] That is just not true, he said. [5:15] No one knew about the birthday message that Trump reportedly sent Epstein [5:19] until the Wall Street Journal disclosed it. [5:21] And when it came to light, the Epstein estate provided it to Congress. [5:25] The FBI did not surface it. [5:27] Patel acknowledged the point. [5:28] You raise a great point, he said. [5:30] That acknowledgement is worth sitting with. [5:33] Patel had just argued that 20 years of investigation [5:35] would have surfaced any significant material. [5:38] Lou had given him one example, [5:40] a documented example of significant material [5:42] that had not been surfaced by the FBI [5:44] and came to light only through outside reporting and estate disclosure. [5:49] And Patel agreed. [5:50] He said, [5:51] You raise a great point. [5:52] That is not the language of someone confident [5:54] in the completeness of his agency's review. [5:56] It is the language of someone who just had his own argument [5:59] turned against him and chose to agree rather than defend it. [6:03] Lou moved to the tapes. [6:04] Wolfe has said publicly that he holds [6:06] approximately 100 hours of recorded interviews with Epstein. [6:10] These are not secret recordings. [6:12] They are journalist interviews conducted over several years. [6:15] Wolfe has released portions publicly. [6:17] Major news organizations have reported on their contents. [6:21] In November 2024, [6:23] Wolfe released a recording in which Epstein described Trump [6:26] as his closest friend for a decade. [6:28] The tapes are not obscure. [6:30] They are known, discussed, reported on, [6:32] and they represent the most extensive on-record account of Epstein's world [6:36] that exists outside the FBI's own files. [6:39] Lou asked Patel directly, [6:42] Has the FBI subpoenaed the tapes that Michael Wolfe conducted of Jeffrey Epstein? [6:46] Patel said he did not know. [6:48] Lou pressed, [6:49] Would it be good for the FBI to interview Michael Wolfe? [6:52] Patel said he could not say they had not already done so. [6:54] He just did not know. [6:56] He would get back to Lou with a specific answer. [6:59] The director of the FBI does not know [7:00] whether his bureau has made contact with the journalist [7:03] holding the most extensive on-record interview archive of Jeffrey Epstein in existence. [7:08] That is not a minor gap. [7:09] It is not a technicality. [7:11] Wolfe's tapes have been publicly discussed for years. [7:14] The question of whether the FBI had moved to obtain or review them [7:17] was not an obscure one. [7:18] And the answer was, [7:19] I don't know. [7:20] Lou moved to the Epstein estate. [7:22] He noted that the birthday message had come from the estate, [7:26] not from the FBI. [7:27] He asked whether the FBI should subpoena the estate for everything it holds. [7:31] Patel said the estate is under no obligation to provide that material, [7:34] even pursuant to a subpoena. [7:37] Lou stopped him. [7:38] That is just false, he said. [7:40] You are the FBI. [7:41] You can subpoena the information from the estate, [7:43] and you should do that. [7:44] Patel said, [7:46] That is literally not how it works. [7:48] Lou said he was moving on. [7:50] That disagreement did not get resolved in the time available. [7:54] But the stakes of it are clear. [7:56] If Patel is right, [7:58] the FBI has no path to materials the estate holds [8:00] that it has not voluntarily disclosed. [8:03] If Lou is right, [8:04] the FBI has had that path all along and has not used it. [8:08] One of those two things is true. [8:10] And the FBI director's response, [8:12] that the estate has no obligation [8:13] rather than any commitment to pursue the question legally, [8:16] left the room without an answer. [8:18] Lou closed with the client list. [8:20] Patel had confirmed in earlier testimony [8:22] that a list of names connected to Epstein's operation existed. [8:26] Attorney General Pam Bondi had confirmed the same. [8:30] Earlier in 2025, [8:31] Bondi had told reporters the list was on her desk and under review. [8:35] A subsequent DOJ memo concluded [8:38] there was no client list in the way the public had imagined it. [8:41] That contradiction had never been cleanly resolved, [8:44] and Lou had two names he wanted to ask about. [8:46] Is Prince Andrew on the list? [8:47] Patel said the material related to Prince Andrew had been made public. [8:52] Lou asked again. [8:53] Is Prince Andrew on the client list? [8:56] Patel said the FBI had released the index of names. [8:59] Lou asked whether Donald Trump is on Epstein's client list. [9:02] Patel said the index had been released [9:04] and the index would speak for itself. [9:06] That's not an answer. [9:07] It's a way around one. [9:09] The index was not what Lou was asking about. [9:11] He was asking about two specific names [9:13] and whether those names appear on a list [9:15] the FBI director had confirmed exists. [9:19] A yes or no question twice. [9:21] And twice Patel pointed to an index instead of answering it. [9:24] If the answer is no, that is one word. [9:27] Patel did not say it. [9:29] Lou closed his time by telling the committee [9:31] that it was a significant red flag [9:33] that the FBI director could not say [9:35] whether Donald Trump was on the Epstein client list. [9:38] The chair called time. [9:39] Three things stand out from those five minutes. [9:42] Patel said photographs of the kind Wolf described do not exist. [9:46] Then, in the same exchange, [9:48] he acknowledged that the FBI did not know [9:50] about the birthday message [9:51] until outside reporting surfaced it. [9:54] Patel said he did not know [9:55] whether his bureau had made contact with the journalist [9:57] holding 100 hours of Epstein interviews. [10:00] And Patel declined to answer yes or no [10:02] when asked whether two specific names appear on a list [10:06] he had already confirmed exists. [10:07] None of those are accusations. [10:10] They are the answers the FBI director gave under oath. [10:13] What they suggest about how thoroughly the bureau [10:15] has pursued the Epstein case, [10:17] about what it has and has not done [10:18] with the tools available to it, [10:20] is a question Lou put on the record. [10:22] Patel's answers are there alongside it. [10:25] The pattern across those five minutes was consistent. [10:28] I'll accept your representation. [10:30] I don't know. [10:31] The index will speak for itself. [10:33] Each answer technically responded to the question [10:35] without actually answering it. [10:37] And each one left the same gap [10:39] between what was asked and what was said. [10:41] Between what the FBI director confirmed exists [10:43] and what he was willing to confirm directly. [10:46] The questions are on the record, [10:48] the answers are two, [10:49] and the gap between them is still there. [10:51] What happened in that exchange [10:53] matters for another reason too. [10:55] None of the questions Lou asked were speculative. [10:57] He was not asking Patel [10:59] to confirm rumours from the internet [11:00] or anonymous claims circulating online. [11:03] He was asking about publicly documented material, [11:06] evidence already discussed in major newspapers, [11:09] recordings already released, [11:10] and investigative steps the FBI [11:12] either had or had not taken. [11:14] That distinction matters [11:15] because Patel repeatedly answered [11:17] as though the information itself was uncertain [11:19] rather than publicly established. [11:21] The safe existed. [11:23] The photographs were reported at the time. [11:25] Wolf's recordings are real [11:26] and have been discussed openly for years. [11:28] The birthday message surfaced [11:30] through outside reporting, [11:31] not through FBI disclosure. [11:33] None of that was disputed in the hearing. [11:35] What was disputed was something narrower [11:37] and, in some ways, more revealing. [11:40] Whether the FBI had fully pursued [11:42] the material available to it [11:43] and whether the director of the bureau [11:45] was prepared to say so clearly under oath. [11:48] That is where the hearing became difficult for Patel [11:50] because every time Lou narrowed the question down [11:52] to something direct, [11:54] Patel moved sideways instead of forward. [11:56] Did the FBI subpoena the tapes? [11:58] I don't know. [11:59] Did the FBI contact Wolf? [12:01] I can't say they didn't. [12:02] Is Prince Andrew on the list? [12:04] The index was released. [12:05] Is Donald Trump on the list? [12:07] The index will speak for itself. [12:09] Those are not denials. [12:10] They are not confirmations either. [12:12] They are answers designed to avoid landing [12:14] in either category. [12:15] And in congressional testimony, [12:17] people notice that distinction immediately. [12:20] Especially someone like Lou, [12:21] whose entire line of questioning [12:22] was built around forcing clarity [12:24] one step at a time. [12:26] That is why the exchange escalated the way it did. [12:29] Not because voices were raised. [12:30] Not because anyone lost control. [12:32] But because the more specific the questions became, [12:35] the less specific the answers became. [12:37] By the end of the five minutes, [12:39] the hearing was no longer really about Epstein alone. [12:41] It had become a test of credibility. [12:44] Could the FBI director confidently explain [12:46] what his bureau had done? [12:47] What it had reviewed? [12:49] And what evidence it possessed [12:50] in one of the most scrutinized criminal investigations [12:52] in recent memory? [12:54] Patel never fully established that confidence [12:56] during the exchange. [12:57] And that is why those five minutes [12:59] spread so quickly afterward. [13:01] Not because they produced a smoking gun. [13:03] They didn't. [13:04] But because they produced something Washington [13:06] often considers just as important. [13:08] Visible hesitation on questions [13:10] that seemed like they should have had [13:11] straightforward answers. [13:13] That is what kept resurfacing [13:14] in clips, transcripts, and commentary [13:16] after the hearing ended. [13:17] Not one explosive revelation, [13:19] but a repeated pattern. [13:21] I don't know. [13:22] I'll accept your representation. [13:23] The index will speak for itself. [13:25] Three phrases, over and over, [13:27] attached to some of the most direct questions [13:29] asked during Patel's testimony. [13:31] And once those answers [13:32] are on the congressional record, [13:34] they stay there, [13:35] no matter what comes next. [13:37] There was another layer to the exchange [13:38] that became clearer after the hearing ended. [13:41] Patel was not appearing before Congress [13:43] as a lower-level official [13:44] unfamiliar with the details of the case. [13:46] He was the director of the FBI, [13:48] the person ultimately responsible [13:50] for the Bureau's investigative decisions [13:52] and public credibility. [13:54] That position changes the standard entirely. [13:56] When an FBI director says, [13:58] I don't know regarding a routine detail [14:00] in an active or obscure case, [14:02] that is one thing. [14:03] But when the subject is Jeffrey Epstein, [14:05] a case examined for years [14:07] across multiple administrations [14:08] involving international scrutiny, [14:10] public distrust, [14:11] sealed records, [14:12] and constant allegations [14:13] of incomplete disclosure, [14:15] every uncertainty carries more weight. [14:18] Lou understood that. [14:19] That is why his questions [14:20] stayed so focused on process. [14:22] Did the FBI review the tapes? [14:24] Did the FBI pursue the estate? [14:26] Did the FBI verify the photographs? [14:29] Did the FBI know what was in the safe? [14:31] These were not abstract political questions. [14:33] They were operational questions. [14:35] Questions about what investigative steps [14:37] had actually been taken. [14:39] And Patel's answers repeatedly circled back [14:41] to limits in his own knowledge, [14:43] rather than confidence in the Bureau's actions. [14:46] That distinction may end up mattering more [14:48] than any individual answer he gave. [14:50] Because congressional hearings [14:51] are not only about facts, [14:53] they are about perception. [14:54] About whether the person testifying [14:56] appears fully informed, [14:57] fully prepared, [14:58] and fully confident [14:59] in the institutions they lead. [15:01] For critics of the FBI, [15:03] Patel's answers reinforced the belief [15:05] that important parts [15:06] of the Epstein investigation [15:07] were either incomplete [15:08] or never fully pursued. [15:10] For Patel's defenders, [15:11] the hearing showed something different, [15:13] an FBI director refusing to speculate publicly [15:16] about sensitive material. [15:18] He could not verify in an open session. [15:20] But even those defences [15:21] leave the same central issue unresolved. [15:23] The questions themselves were straightforward, [15:25] and many of the answers were not. [15:27] That gap is what turned [15:28] an ordinary oversight hearing [15:30] into a nationally discussed moment [15:32] within hours. [15:33] Because people watching [15:34] were not trying to decode [15:35] complicated legal language, [15:37] they were reacting to something simpler. [15:38] A senior official being asked [15:41] direct questions [15:41] and repeatedly declining [15:43] to give direct answers. [15:45] That dynamic is easy [15:46] for audiences to understand immediately, [15:48] regardless of politics. [15:50] And it became even more noticeable [15:51] near the end of the exchange, [15:53] when Lou stopped trying [15:54] to extract detailed explanations [15:56] and shifted towards [15:57] something else entirely, [15:58] putting the uncertainty itself [16:00] on the record. [16:01] That was the significance [16:02] of his closing statement [16:04] about the red flag. [16:05] He was no longer arguing [16:06] over a specific document [16:07] or investigative step. [16:09] He was arguing that [16:10] the inability, [16:11] or unwillingness, [16:12] to answer clearly [16:13] had itself become part of the story. [16:15] That is a difficult position [16:16] for any FBI director [16:18] to be in publicly, [16:19] especially on a case [16:20] where public scepticism [16:21] has existed for years, [16:23] and where every unanswered question [16:24] immediately creates [16:25] ten more online. [16:27] By the time the chair [16:28] ended the round, [16:29] the exchange had created [16:30] two competing narratives [16:31] at the same time. [16:32] One narrative said [16:33] the hearing exposed [16:34] major unanswered questions [16:36] about the Epstein investigation [16:37] and showed that the FBI [16:39] still could not clearly account [16:40] for key pieces of evidence [16:41] and testimony. [16:43] The other said [16:43] the hearing demonstrated [16:45] how impossible it is [16:46] to discuss sensitive [16:47] investigative material [16:48] in public [16:48] without fuelling speculation [16:50] beyond what the evidence [16:51] actually proves. [16:53] Those narratives [16:54] are now colliding [16:54] in real time. [16:56] And the reason this hearing [16:57] continues circulating [16:58] is because neither side [16:59] believes the exchange [17:00] settled anything. [17:01] If anything, [17:02] it did the opposite. [17:04] It reopened questions [17:05] many people thought [17:05] had already been answered [17:06] years ago.