In The News – Week of September 21st 2025 – Part 2

In The News – Week of September 21st 2025 – Part 2

Listen:

• mediaBrew Media Player: ( 22 Min. mp3)
• Default Device Player: ( 22 Min. mp3)

The discussion surrounding the Epstein files has garnered significant attention, particularly regarding the allegations of sex trafficking involving Jeffrey Epstein. It has been established that Epstein trafficked young women, including minors, primarily for his own sexual gratification, as indicated by the 2018 indictment from the Southern District of New York. However, the inquiry extends beyond merely identifying Epstein as a perpetrator; the public seeks clarity on whether he was involved in trafficking these individuals to other parties. This inquiry poses a critical question that remains partially answered due to the limitations imposed on investigations in previous years, particularly during the tenure of former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta.

The investigation into Epstein’s activities has faced significant obstacles since a non-prosecution agreement was established in 2008, which restricted the scope of inquiries into his operations. As noted in the testimony, the investigation was limited to certain time frames and parameters, which hampered efforts to uncover the full extent of Epstein’s trafficking network. Officials have expressed that, while there is no credible information linking Epstein to other traffickers, the potential for undisclosed connections remains an area of concern. The current administration has reopened inquiries into Epstein’s case, yet the release of pertinent files is still constrained by court orders, which complicates the transparency that the public is demanding.

The implications of the ongoing investigation into Epstein’s trafficking activities are profound, touching on broader issues of accountability and justice. The limited information released thus far raises questions about the efficacy of past administrations in addressing Epstein’s crimes and the systemic failures that allowed his predatory behavior to continue for so long. The inquiry also reflects societal anxieties about power, privilege, and the protection of vulnerable populations from exploitation. The public’s yearning for transparency highlights a significant gap in trust regarding law enforcement’s ability to adequately address such serious allegations.

In conclusion, while the Epstein files reveal troubling details about his exploitation of young women, the pursuit of justice is hampered by legal limitations and historical failures in addressing the full scope of his operations. The investigation continues to seek credible evidence while navigating complex legal precedents. As the public demands more transparency and accountability, it remains essential for law enforcement to prioritize the rights and voices of victims while ensuring that justice is served. The legacy of Epstein’s actions and the responses from various administrations will shape future discussions on trafficking and the protection of vulnerable individuals within society.

Transcript

I want to ask you about the Epstein files. Have you seen the Epstein files? I have not reviewed the entirety of it myself, but a good amount. 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.

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 quote me on this, 97 to 2001-ish, and then when the Trump administration courageously reopened it. Ash, excuse me for interrupting, but I’m going to run out of time. You’ve seen most of the files.

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. Now, President Trump has deferred to the FBI and the Department of Justice with respect to the Epstein records. He says it is your call about releasing him, and I understand that the department and the agency have decided to release them in cooperation with the House committee, is that correct? Yes, sir.

So you’re releasing them a little bit at a time, is that correct? We’re releasing as much as we can, 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.

This issue is not going to go away, and I think 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 I think you’re going to have 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, and 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, but what exists in the Epstein case files was a direct result of the limited search warrants from 2006 and 2007, 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 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 at the same time, we don’t release the names of victims who were credible, and so 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 I know that’s not going to satisfy many, many, many people, but if they wanted it done right, then the investigation from its origination should have been done right, 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, and he should have been investigated fully for the entirety of his crime and criminal enterprise, not just from 1997 to 2001. Gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for unanimous consent.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit two sets of documents. The first is a series of emails from the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. They are making FOIA requests to get their own FBI files and not having any success, so I want to bring attention to that by submitting that to the record.

The second document that I want to submit to the record for the record, I know we don’t usually read these. This one’s not readable. It’s completely redacted for the most part, the first 50 pages.

This is actually the search warrant that was served on James O’Keefe for a diary that he had already given to the government two months before, and as it turns out, there were no indictments here, yet he still doesn’t know why he was raided, and I think he deserves to know. Stop the objection. Thank you.

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California. Director, the first time you saw Donald Trump’s name was in the Epstein files. Did you close the files or keep reading? I’ve reviewed not the entirety of the files.

So you haven’t reviewed all of the Epstein files? Personally, no. You’re the director of the FBI. This is the largest sex trafficking case the FBI has ever been a part of.

Buck stops at the top and your testimony today is you have not reviewed all the files. What I’ve been doing is busy providing the safest country this country has seen in modern U.S. history in historic speed because the men and women of the FBI are given the resources to reduce the homicide rate, to reduce the drug trafficking rate, to reduce the amount of children that are being trafficked. Sounds like those children being trafficked would appreciate the director reviewing the files.

You said you don’t know the number of times Trump’s name appears in the files, so it could at least be a thousand times. Is that right? The number is a total misleading factor. We have not released anyone’s name in the Epstein files that has not been credible.

We have released every piece of legally permissible information. You can characterize the numbers however you want it. It sounds like if you don’t know the number, it could at least be a thousand times.

It’s not. Is it at least 500 times? No. Is it at least 100 times? No.

Then what’s the number? I don’t know the number, but it’s not that. Do you think it might be your job to know the number? My job is to provide for the safety and security of this country. My job is not to engage in political innuendo so you can go out to the sticks and get your 22nd hit in your fundraising article.

Keep going, reclaiming your time, because the people of California are being under-served by your representation. If the president is not implicated, why not release everything that involves him? We have released everything, the president and anyone else’s side, that is credible and lawfully be able to be released. Your fixation on this matter and baseless accusations that I’m hiding is disgusting.

Anyone that says that needs to look at the stats alone and go back to the state of California, who’s receiving the biggest surge in FBI resources through my redeployment, because the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco need it. Remembering your oath to tell the truth, did you ever tell Donald Trump his name is in the files? I have never spoken to President Trump about the Epstein files. Did you ever tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump’s name is in the Epstein files? The Attorney General and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.

Did you tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump’s name is in the Epstein files? And we have released where President Trump’s name is in the Epstein files. It’s a simple question. Did you tell the Attorney General that the president’s name is in the Epstein files? During many conversations that the Attorney General and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed.

The question is simple. Who can tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump’s name is in the Epstein files? Yes or no? Why don’t you try spelling it out? Yes or no? Use the alphabet. Yes or no? No.

Director, it sounds like you don’t want to tell us. Did you tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump’s name was in the Epstein files? Why don’t you try serving your constituency by focusing on reducing violent crime in this country and the number of pedophiles that are legally harbored in your sanctuary cities in California? I’ll work with you on that. Do you want to work with us on that? Director, reclaim your time.

I’m the lawless gentleman from California. Did you tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump’s name is in the Epstein files? The question has been asked and answered. You’ve not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.

Director, did Donald Trump ever say to you, just find and release the entire truth? Don’t worry if I’m in it. The instructions from the administration were to release all credible information, and we have done that. Did Donald Trump ever provide information about Jeffrey Epstein as an informant? Donald Trump has not been, and I can only speak for the FBI, an informant of the FBI.

So, Director, you’ve played this cute shell game where you say you can’t release everything because the court has said that it legally is not allowed to be released, but the court calls bullshit. Judge Richard Berman said that when you went to the court, quote, information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales, pales in comparison to Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice. So let’s move on, Director.

You wrote a book called Government Gangsters. You identified 20 individuals in that book. You put me on that list, at the top of the list.

Thank you. My children find it flattering. 20 of those individuals have been investigated or have had adverse actions.

Director, considering that you have identified these people as, quote, government gangsters, will you recuse yourself from making any investigation decisions about these individuals? Anyone that has been terminated at the FBI has been done something. No, no. The question again- They failed to meet the muster of their constitutional obligation.

Director, I will work on the audio video. I’m going to borrow your terminology and call bullshit on your entire career in Congress. I’m reclaiming my time, Director.

It has been a disgrace to the American people. Director, I’m reclaiming my time. You can reclaim your time all you want.

Mr. Chairman, are you going to allow a witness to speak this way? Mr. Chairman, would you recuse yourself, Director? The gentleman has no time to Mr. Chairman, would you admonish the witness not to insult members? The gentleman has no time. Mr. Chairman,The committee will remember. Quick point of order.

Could the gentleman be extended an additional 20 seconds to complete his thoughts since the witness decided to interrupt him? Mr. Chairman. The witness will be able to respond if he wants. We’ll make sure he has time to do that.

My question is, will you, Director, recuse yourself, yes or no, from investigating or making decisions about the 60 individuals, including myself, that you identified as government gangsters? Yes or no? Time of the gentleman has expired. The witness may respond if he would like. The answer was no, as I heard.

Correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Director Patel.

In addition to the extensive purge of nonpartisan career FBI official reports, reports indicate that dozens of remaining officials have been subjected to polygraph exams to test their loyalty. My understanding is approximately 40 officials have been asked to sit for a polygraph during your administration, and several have been asked whether they have ever made negative comments about you. Director Patel, FBI agents pledge their loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, not you personally.

What is the basis for requiring polygraph exams of your workforce and asking them if they’ve made negative comments about you? I don’t know what reports you’re referring to, Ranking Member, and I reject any reporting that has false information in it, so I’m not going to respond to that. As far as polygraphs go, generally they are always and always have been utilized at the FBI to track down those that leak sensitive information and have unauthorized disclosures to the media, and we will continue to use them to ensure the integrity of the FBI. Did any individual on your senior executive team, the director’s advisory team, or who serve in the positions on the seventh floor receive disqualifying alerts on their polygraphs? Senator, I’m not going to get into the personnel discussions that were had on a polygraph.

Those were private discussions, and many of them relate to ongoing investigations. Did you or Attorney General Bondi provide any individual with a waiver so they could remain employed after they received disqualifying alerts on their polygraphs? I’ll have to get back to you. You don’t remember that? No, sir.

My priority is protecting the American public, not getting into the weeds of polygraphs. And to have a decent memory when you come before a committee. I’m happy to talk about all the good work the men and women of the FBI are doing, including providing the lowest crime rate in American history.

If you want to talk about how to protect the citizens, Chicago has seen a 30% reduction in its murder rate because of the men and women of the FBI. And you take credit for that? I’ll happily do that. You take credit for that? The inter-agency partners and the men and women of the Chicago PD have never been more powerful.

Oh, include local law enforcement, please. Have you ever seen my testimony across this country where I always lead with our inter-agency partnerships with state and local law enforcement? It is the pillar of what I am doing. And on the seventh floor, for the first time in FBI history, I have installed police officers and sheriffs right on my seventh floor to report to us every day what’s going around the country on the street level because that is a priority of the FBI and is the only way we are going to work.

I don’t take credit for the anything. But I will defend the men and women of the FBI and the cops that help us get it done. You should.

Director Patel, to your knowledge, did a whistleblower ever make a disclosure to Attorney General Bondi indicating that the New York field office was withholding Epstein-related records? I’m not familiar with that whistleblower. You know that there was such a whistleblower? I’m not familiar with that whistleblower. In response to the blow-back she received, Attorney General Bondi also pushed the FBI to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records on an arbitrarily short deadline in March and the FBI was directed to flag any documents that mentioned President Trump.

Nothing came of that review until July when DOJ and FBI released an unsigned memorandum stating there is no incriminating client list. Why was this July 7th memorandum unsigned? Would you prefer I’ve used Autopen? Did you? Why was it unsigned? The memorandum had the insignia of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and in our effort to secure transparency for the American people because the three prior administrations had not done so, we conducted an exhaustive search of everything related to the Epstein cases and we produced what was legally and permissibly able to be produced to Congress, the American public, and there’s a congressional subpoena and we’re continuing to do so. Did you personally direct that investigation so that you would sign such a? Did I personally direct what investigation? Of the Epstein records for any reference to President Trump? Again, you are citing reporting that I think is baseless.

We conducted an investigation of the Epstein case files pursuant to the direction of the President of the Administration to provide all credible information and we are working with Congress pursuant to a congressional subpoena to turn over all the documents we can. All individuals. Who at DOJ and FBI was responsible for its drafting and conclusions? Many individuals at the Department of Justice and the FBI are responsible.

There was no lead? No lead person? The Attorney General leads the Department of Justice and I lead the FBI. So the Attorney General is responsible for that? The Attorney General leads the Department of Justice. Director Patel, much like you, Deputy Director Don Bongino was a conspiracy theorist who built a lucrative career making inflammatory and unsubstantiated statements about the FBI that would be disqualifying in any administration that cared about nonpartisan law enforcement.

For instance, Mr. Bongino called the placement of pipe bombs outside the DNC and RNC headquarters on January 6th, quote, an inside job and went on to say this was a set up. I have zero doubt and whoever goes into the FBI, you better get an answer about why. Director Patel, you and Deputy Director Bongino are now leading the FBI.

What is the evidence to suggest the pipe bombs placed outside of the DNC and RNC on January 6th were an inside job? I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Director Bongino’s mind record. So many on this committee in the media jettisoned our 31 years of public service. Can you answer the question, sir? I’m answering the question.

You’re questioning the integrity of the Deputy Director of the FBI and mine. And I’m going to answer the question. The pipe bomb investigation is ongoing and I’m not going to discuss the details of the pipe bomb investigation.

Mr. Bongino was a Secret Service agent for 15 years, a police officer for five. I served this country in multiple administrations for 16 years. We were also private citizens and we are now back in government service.

And what we have the ability to do is set aside our personal beliefs to deliver the mission of justice for this country. And we’re doing it day in and day out. And I find it disgusting that everyone and anyone would jettison our 31 years of combined experience that is now at the helm of the FBI, delivering historic results at historic speeds for the American people.

So you have no evidence? I got a lot of evidence and I’ll give it to you when I can. Looking forward to it. There’s a New York Times story this morning about Chris Meyer.

As I understand it, he was your personal pilot, at least for some period of time. Mr. Meyer has quite a record himself. Flew over 350 hours as an Air Force pilot on three aircraft types in Afghanistan.

Mr. Jardina, another former FBI agent, a 1999 graduate of U.S. Naval Academy, commanded 100 Marines in combat during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, participated in several firefights, followed up with 2011 deployment as a reservist to Afghanistan, where he interrogated senior Taliban officials. It appears that you terminated these two agents. Why? I’m not going to get into personnel decisions that we made.

So you’re not accountable for your decisions to take people who served our country so admirably and terminate them without any cause? That’s a one-sided story. Anyone that has been terminated from the FBI, generally speaking, failed to meet the needs of the FBI and uphold their constitutional duties. And you providing a one-sided story from your perch is absolutely disgraceful because the men and women of the FBI deserve better.

And your attack on the current leadership of the men and women of the FBI is equally disgraceful because now you’re attacking the leaders that are our brave SACs in the field who are doing the job that this country needs. It’s disgraceful. And we will continue to do it.

Excuse me. It’s disgraceful when Mr. Meyer and Mr. Jardina, who served our country so well, are terminated apparently because of the rants of a broadcaster. That is your opinion.

It is not a fact. Well, it’s certainly my opinion. I can back up with facts.

Let me ask you to explain the situation in Baltimore, if you will. Did you read the story about the termination of the project in Baltimore? Which story? Sorry, which story?

The Baltimore agents were investigating. Are you familiar with that? No, sir. Well, I’m not going to go into detail.

It would take too long to do it. But apparently that this group, a nihilistic violent extremist group, seeks to blackmail children to perform vile acts on a camera under investigation by Baltimore, which was terminated by you. I’d like you to respond in writing, if you will, as to the circumstances of that termination.

Sure. Our operations against NBEs, as you’re referring to, has been historically high. And we’ve taken down multiple NBE rings, including 764 rings, who are harming children and causing them to be mutilated.

Last question. Can you explain why you are eliminating the requirements for a college degree for your agents? I appreciate the opportunity to address that. You said in your opening statement, we are reducing the training requirements at Quantico.

We are not. We are expanding them. You’re referring to an crossover program, because I believe the men and women of places like the DEA, the ATF, and the Marshals Service and the Secret Service who want to work at the FBI should deserve that opportunity and a shortened bridge program, which we provided.

We are also keeping the 18-week BFTC, as it’s traditionally been held at the FBI. So we’re not reducing any requirements. We are increasing those that we bring into the FBI.

Did you change any of the requirements on college degrees? We are allowing police officers who have served for a number of years to come into the FBI who did not obtain the requisite college degree to apply to be federal agents, because we feel they have the street-level experience we need to conduct this mission. I yield, Mr. Chairman.