NOTICE: THE NEW EPSTEIN MATERIAL WILL BE POSTED ON A NEW THREAD: Sacrifice Virgins, Get World by the Balls: The Mossad's Lolita Gambit The Epstein scandal is possibly the biggest scandal ever to metastasize under the eyes of the entire US media without inciting any real curiosity. Think about it -- hundreds of female children, sacrificed to the perverted lusts of a coterie of wealthy, powerful pedophiles -- princes of finance, princes of real countries, pampered princes who lord it over the rest of us but are in turn lorded over by a cadre of blackmailers. The Epstein scandal presents us with a horrifying possible reality: Our entire world, its political, economic, military and social aspect, may have been distorted to suit the will of powerful persons whose identities are likely to remain hidden forever. As if the Marquis de Sade had not died in prison, but rather, had been elevated to the throne, from whence licentiousness and evil would emanate to pollute the entire world.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/keystone- ... -blunders/ Keystone Kash Throws Acosta Under Bus for Epstein Blunders. The FBI director blamed the former U.S. attorney as he faced a grilling over the botched Epstein files release. by Sarah Ewall-Wice Political Reporter Daily Beast Updated Sep. 17 2025 2:29AM EDT Published Sep. 16 2025 12:59PM EDT
A federal judge ruled in February 2019 that the non-prosecution agreement approved by Alexander Acosta, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) of 2004 because Epstein's victims were not notified about the deal before it was finalized.
The court found that prosecutors, including Acosta, broke the law by concealing the agreement and failing to consult the victims, thereby denying them their right to be informed and to provide input on the plea deal.
While the agreement was later deemed illegal due to this violation, the Department of Justice's internal review concluded that Acosta exercised "poor judgment" but did not commit professional misconduct or act out of corruption.
Acosta defended the deal as necessary to ensure Epstein served jail time, arguing that without federal intervention, Epstein might have avoided incarceration entirely.
Google AI
FBI Director Kash Patel stated during congressional testimony on September 17, 2025, that he has not reviewed all of the Epstein files, acknowledging he has been too busy with other responsibilities despite being the director of the FBI.
When pressed by Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Eric Swalwell, Patel confirmed that he has never spoken to President Trump about the Epstein files, either regarding Trump's name appearing in them or about the files in general.
Patel also said he did not know how many times Trump's name appears in the documents.
-- Google AI, 9.17.25
FBI Director Kash Patel threw former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta under the bus for the handling of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s case and became defensive as he faced heat on Tuesday over the botched release of documents.
Patel appeared on Capitol Hill to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time since his confirmation in January.
In anticipation of being grilled about Epstein, the FBI director addressed the Epstein crisis during his opening remarks.
“I know that there’s a lot of talk about Epstein, and I’m here to testify that the original sin in the Epstein case was the way it was initially brought by Mr. Acosta back in 2006,” Patel read.
FBI Director Kash Patel appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify on September 16 as he faces heat over the investigation into the murder of Charlie Kirk and the handling of the release of the Epstein documents. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The FBI director blasted the limited search warrants and claimed that investigators did not take as much material as they should have seized.
“If I were the FBI director then, it wouldn’t have happened,” Patel declared.
He said that in 2008, Acosta allowed Epstein to enter into a non-prosecution agreement, which prohibited anyone from ever seeing the material again without court permission as well as block future prosecutions.
Despite slamming Acosta, who went on to become Donald Trump’s labor secretary during his first term, Patel argued that the FBI, at the direction of Trump, has turned over information it has been legally able to do so and will continue to work with Congress.
Acosta is set to appear before a House panel to testify about the Epstein case later this week. He approved the 2008 deal that allowed the disgraced financier to avoid hefty federal charges and instead plead guilty to Florida state charges of soliciting a prostitute.
Trump's first labor secretary, Alex Acosta, negotiated the 2008 plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein. He will meet with House investigators on September 19. Mark Wilson/Getty
Despite the president campaigning on the release of files and early indications by the administration that it would follow through, the Justice Department and FBI instead released an unsigned July memo stating there was no so-called client list.
When pressed about that memo, Patel became immediately combative.
Ranking member Dick Durbin asked Patel why the memo, which indicated there would be no further prosecutions or files released, was unsigned.
“Would you’ve preferred I used autopen?” the FBI director shot back with a smirk.
Durbin appeared confused at the defensive response and repeated, asking why it was unsigned.
Patel said the memo had the insignia of the Department of Justice and the FBI. He claimed they were trying to get transparency for the American people and accused the last three administrations of not doing so. He did not mention that included the first Trump administration.
“We conducted an exhaustive search of everything related to the Epstein cases, and we produced what was legally and permissible able to be produced to Congress.”
The Justice Department has only recently started turning over Epstein files to Congress in response to a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee.
FBI Director Kash Patel called reports that the FBI went through documents for references to Donald Trump "baseless" and became combative when asked why he had not signed the FBI memo that said there would be no further prosecutions or a client list. Davidoff Studios Photography/Davidoff Studios/Getty Images
Durbin cut off Patel’s increasingly defensive response to ask him if he personally directed the investigation to review Epstein documents for any reference to Trump, a known Epstein associate, who has been facing mounting questions over their relationship.
Patel claimed Durbin had cited reporting that was “baseless.” The FBI director argued they conducted an investigation of the Epstein case files at the direction of the president to provide all “credible” information. He was specific to say the FBI was working with Congress to turn over “all documents we can.”
When pressed on who took the lead on drafting the memo essentially declaring the case close on Epstein and indicating no more information would be released, Patel evaded answering directly. He said Attorney General Pam Bondi led the Justice Department, and he led the FBI.
It was not just Democrats who brought up the Epstein case. Senator John Kennedy also questioned Patel over the case when it was his turn to ask questions.
Patel told him that he had not reviewed all the Epstein files but had seen a “good amount.”
“Who else did he traffic these young women to?” Kennedy asked the FBI director about Epstein.
Patel went back to criticizing Acosta for limiting the investigation with the 2008 deal. He said it limited what they could speak publicly about.
“You’ve seen most of the files, who if anyone did Epstein traffic these young women to besides himself?” Kennedy cut in.
“Himself. There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday, that he trafficked to other individuals,” Patel insisted.
He repeated however, despite a report that the administration had some 100,000 pages of Epstein documents, that the information they have is “limited.”
Kennedy asked him to clarify that there was no one. The FBI director confirmed that was what he was saying based on the case files the FBI has.
The senator pressed Patel over the release of documents in response to the House subpoena.
The FBI director said they were releasing “as much as we can” but insisted they were “limited by different court orders.”
In an effort to get the Epstein crisis back under control, the Justice Department sought permission to release grand jury testimony, but in every case, judges rejected their efforts, noting that the grand jury testimony was limited and nearly all already public, whereas the Justice Department had other material that was not grand jury testimony.
Patel on Tuesday suggested the administration would release everything it could legally, but he did not commit to releasing all documents.
“This is not going to go away,” Kennedy warned pointing that the American people want to know about those other than Epstein who abused the young women. “I think you’re going to have to do more to satisfy the American people’s understandable curiosity in that regard.”
Patel responded by slamming the Obama and Biden administrations for not releasing information while touting the first Trump administration renewing charges against Epstein.
“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,” the FBI director insisted.
“I am not saying that others were not trafficked and others were not involved,” Patel said.
He claimed they have released “all credible information” and argued that the information not released so far was that which was “not credible.”
Patel acknowledged his response was not going to satisfy a lot of people, but he argued if they wanted the investigation done right, then Epstein should not have been given a “get out of jail free card” when he was.
Rep. Ted Lieu CONFRONTS FBI Director Kash Patel | Judiciary Hearing Rep. Ted Lieu Sep 17, 2025
The FBI Director could not answer whether Prince Andrew or Donald Trump were on Epstein’s client list.
Transcript
The gentleman from California is recognized. Thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. The FBI searched Jeffrey Epste's Manhattan residence. Correct. I believe that happened in 2018. I think there was two locations, sir. It's 2019. And in that residence, the FBI found a safe. Correct. I don't have the catalog of evidence in front of me. In that residence, the FBI found a safe. Correct. I'll accept your representation. Okay. And in that safe, the FBI found topless and lewd photographs of girls. Correct. Again, sir, I'll accept your representation. I don't know. Thank you. It was um all over the media at the time. There's a New York Times article that says Jeffrey Epstein is indicted on sex charges as discovery of nude photos is disclosed dated July 8th, 2019. And the Times reports a trove of LWD photographs of girls was discovered in a safe inside finance year Jeffrey Epste's Manhattan mansion. Author Michael Wolf has conducted numerous interviews of Jeffrey Epstein. I'm going to play for you a video clip of what Michael Wolf said Epstein told him was in the safe and what he showed the author was in this safe. So, let's please play that clip now. Elected. Um I and I was sitting talking to Epstein and he said, "Wait a minute. I got to show you something." Um and he went into his safe and he came out with with um with with photographs. They were they were polaroids, I I think. And um and he kind of kind of they were he kind of spread them out like playing cards. And it was Trump. I mean, I think there were a dozen of them. and and it was Trump with girls of an uncertain age at Epstein's Palm Beach house where all all of the things that he would ultimately be accused of took place. And I remember very vividly three of them. There are two in which Trump is uh the girls topless girls are sitting on Trump's lap and then a third in which he has a a a stain on the front of his pants and the girls are kind of kind of pointing at it sort of bent over laughing. So director Patel I'm going to ask you a very broad and general question. As you know Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were friends. There are, of course, photos showing Donald Trump together with Epstein. Correct. I don't have the entirety of the photographs, but I think they've been photographed in public together. All right. Are there any photos showing Donald Trump with girls of an uncertain age? No. How do you know that? Because that information would have been brought to light by multiple administrations and FBI investigators over the course of the last 20 years. Well, you know what? That's just not true. because no one knew about the creepy birthday message that Donald Trump wrote to Jeffrey Epstein until the Wall Street Journal disclosed it and then all of a sudden the Epstein estate provides it to Congress. Certainly, you weren't there at the search. You don't know what Epste may or may not have done with those photographs even prior to the search. Maybe someone has it. Maybe the Epstein estate has it. You raise a great point. So, so I'm gonna ask you, have you um asked to talk to Michael Wolf? You rais a great point. I haven't personally asked to talk to Michael FBI as the FBI I'll get back to you if the FBI specific about a 100 hours of testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. Would would it be good for the FBI to interview Michael Wolf? I'm not saying they haven't. I just don't know. Has FBI subpoenaed the tapes that Michael Wolf has conducted of Jeffrey Epstein? I don't know. All right. So, if you could proide us an answer, that would be terrific. Well, let me ask you this question then. Um, have you looked at all the photos in Epstein files? I have looked at all the information that the investigators who investigated this case have provided to run out credible leads. And in the Epstein file, was there that creepy birthday message that Donald Trump had written to Epstein? No, that's what I was trying to tell you. You raised a great point. The estate of Jeffrey Epstein has a voluminous amount of information that they have not released before. Okay, so that's great. So, um, wouldn't it be great if FBI subpoenaed the state of Jeffrey Epstein for all that information? The estate is under no obligation to provide that material even pursuant to a subpoena. That's a great point. Yeah, that's just that's just false. Okay, that's just false. You're the freaking FBI. You can subpoena the information from the state and you better do that. That's literally not how it works. I'm gonna move on now and talk about Epstein's client list. You confirmed that exists. Attorney General Pambody confirmed earlier this year that exists. I just want to ask you a simple question. Is Prince Andrew on Epstein's client list? The material related to Prince Andrew has been made public. Is Prince Andrew on on the client list? We have released the index of names that were in Jeffrey Epste. Is Donald Trump on Epste's client list? The index has been released and the index will speak for itself. I'm just going to say America is a huge red flag. The FBI director could not answer whether Donald Trump was on Epson. Gentlemen's time is expired. not recognize.
*******************
Moskowitz Presses FBI Director Kash Patel on Epstein "Birthday Book," Names on Epstein List Congressman Jared Moskowitz Sep 17, 2025
Wednesday, September 17, 2025 — During a House Judiciary hearing, Congressman Moskowitz presses FBI Director Kash Patel to release names on the Epstein list and explain the President's signature on Epstein's 50th "Birthday Book."
Transcript
ANY DAY. >> NO PROBLEM. SO NOW. >> I THE. >> GOOD PART I WANT TO TAKE YOUR ATTENTION BACK A SECOND. OKAY. BREAKING NEWS. KASH PATEL IS NOMINATED TO BE THE FBI DIRECTOR. DAN BONGINO IS NOMINATED TO BE THE NUMBER TWO AT THE FBI. MAGA CELEBRATES REJOICES. BELLS ARE RINGING OUT THE TEAM. PATEL, BONGINO THAT SOUGHT OUT EVERY PODCAST MICROPHONE TO TALK ABOUT THE EPSTEIN LIST. THE NAMES ARE FINALLY GOING TO GET RELEASED. IT BEGINS. THEY PRODUCE WHITE BINDERS. PHASE ONE WITH THE PODCASTERS. THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY ONE OF THEM. OF COURSE. I MADE THIS UP. YOUR NAME'S ON IT, RIGHT? AND THE NAMES ARE GOING TO COME OUT. PAM BONDI SAYS THE LIST IS ON HER DESK. THEN A MEMO COMES OUT ALL OF A SUDDEN AND SAYS, THERE'S NO LIST. OH NO, NO. PHASE TWO. PHASE TWO BINDERS NEVER HAPPENED. YOU SAID THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES AROUND EPSTEIN JUST AREN'T TRUE. THEY NEVER HAVE BEEN. AND YESTERDAY, IN AN ANSWER TO SENATOR KENNEDY, YOU SAID THE FBI IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT EPSTEIN TRAFFICKED GIRLS TO ANYONE BUT HIMSELF. SO, ACCORDING TO YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY AND IN THIS COMMITTEE, ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE, THE FBI HAS, THE NUMBER OF NAMES ON THE LIST ARE ZERO. >> ZERO. >> THE INDEX HAS BEEN RELEASED AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT TRAFFICKING OPERATION WERE CHARGED, UM, IN 2008. >> OTHER THAN EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL, YOUR TESTIMONY IN THE SENATE HERE IS THAT ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE, THE NUMBER OF OTHER NAMES IS ZERO. >> THAT WERE CHARGED BASED ON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. >> WHO ARE THE OTHER NAMES? GIVE ME OTHER NAMES THAT WERE CHARGED. >> WE ARE NOT RELEASING THE NAMES OF ANYONE BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NEVER DOES THAT OF ANYONE THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY CREDIBLE INFORMATION. >> OKAY, LET ME ATTACK THEM. >> LET ME MOVE FORWARD. THE PRESIDENT HAS YOU'VE SEEN THE PICTURE OF THE WOMAN'S BODY WITH THE WRITING AND THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE. THE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT'S NOT HIS. OKAY. PRESIDENT SAYS IT'S NOT HIS. THE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES SAY IT'S NOT HIS. THE ADMINISTRATION SAY IT'S NOT HIS. WILL YOU BE OPENING UP AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EPSTEIN ESTATE FOR PUTTING OUT A FAKE DOCUMENT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE, LINKING HIM TO THE WORLD'S LARGEST PEDOPHILE RING? WE'LL BE OPENING THAT INVESTIGATION INTO THAT. >> ON WHAT BASIS? >> ON WHAT BASIS? THEY LITERALLY PUT OUT A FAKE DOCUMENT, ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT, WITH A FAKE SIGNATURE, A FORGERY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SIGNATURE. THAT'S THE BASIS. >> SURE. I'LL DO IT. >> OKAY. I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT INVESTIGATION. UH. OH,
***************************
Trump’s FBI Director CRUMBLES During House CROSS-EXAM Katie Phang Sep 17, 2025
Kash Patel gets slammed by House Judiciary Committee Democrats today, just underscoring his incompetence for the job as FBI Director. Katie Phang highlights some of Patel’s most egregious statements about the Epstein Files & critiques the sham questioning by Republicans.
Transcript
Hi everyone. As you can see, not my typical studio recording setting, but uh I wanted to come on because I wanted to talk about this insanity that happened today with Cash Patel testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. As you know, Cash Patel ringing in day two of showing how absolutely incompetent he is to be able to hold the job of director of the FBI. Now, I know most of us probably have certain ideas about the type of person who should hold that job and and and the role that that person plays. And I can tell you whatever you think it is, it's not Cash Patel. And I don't know if you've been seeing clips during the day posted on the media. Um, but I'm going to go through a few of them with you right now to show exactly how bad Cash Patel is at what he's doing, but more importantly, how much of a partisan hack Cash Patel is. He is truly the Trump administration DEI hire. Because if you're going to use that standard from the Trump administration that DEI hires are incompetent, incapable of doing their job, um only um doing what somebody tells them to do and that they're not qualified because listen, I don't think that that's the definition of DEI. But if you're going to use that Republican DEI standard, then that is exactly what Pash Patel is. He is the Trump administration's prime example of a DEI hire. And of course, it doesn't hurt that he happens to be a minority. So then Donald Trump can say, "Oh, look. I'm checking off that box." But here, take a quick listen because there were some really heated moments today between Patel and some of the Democrats. And I just want to run through a couple of them. So take a quick listen to this one between Eric Swallwell, congressman from California, and Cash Patel. Director, the first time you saw Donald Trump's name was in the Epstein files. Did you close the files or keep reading? I have reviewed not the entirety of the files. So I have 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. All righty. So, how many of you would think that if your job as FBI director that you would have actually spent the time reviewing the entirety of the Epstein files? As we can see, Patel is saying that he actually hasn't done it himself. He said, quote, "Personally, I haven't reviewed the entirety of the Epstein files." So, what does that mean? He's either actually getting the information from somebody else who has, which again is a I think absurd filter to be using if you're supposed to be answering questions in front of Congress, if you're supposed to be reporting to the president of the United States, and to frankly if you are supposed to be telling the American people in the interest of quote full transparency, which is what you've promised cash Patel, then you really should have looked at the entirety of the Epstein files. So now we know that Patel has no basis grounded in fact to answer the questions that he is being asked today. So if that's the case, why not just say I cannot answer these questions because I have not personally reviewed these files. No, what he's doing is he's cherrypicking information and he's cobbling together to be able to serve his dear cult leader so that he doesn't look bad. Actually, frankly, both of them, Patel and Trump. Now, moving on. Here's another exchange between Patel and Swallwell. Now, this one's a little bit longer, and it's pretty funny because Patel refuses refuses to tell Congressman Swallwell how many times Donald Trump's name appears in the Epstein files. Take a listen. 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. We have not released anyone's name in the file that has not been credible. Could it at least release every piece of legally permissible information? You can characterize the numbers however you want it. Claiming my time, director, it sounds like if you don't know the number, it could at least be a thousand times, which be 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 and keep going reclaiming your time because the people of California are being underserved by your representation is not implicated. Why not release everything that involves we have released everything the president and anyone else's side that is credible and lawfully be able to be released. Some of you may be saying, "Well, obviously Katie, if he hasn't reviewed the entirety of the Epstein files, how can he possibly be able to say how many times Donald Trump's name appears?" But you know what Patel has never denied today? He has never denied the reporting that the FBI has tasked a lot of people to go and scour the entirety of the Epstein files to flag every single time that Donald Trump's name has appeared. And we know that that has happened according to all of the media reports. So, if that's the case, don't you think somebody would have reported back to the director of the FBI that Donald Trump's name appears x number of times? It's remarkable though because if you hear Congressman Swallwell, he gives a range. He gives a number. And of course, Patel's like, "No, it's not that. No, it's not that. No, it's not that. But I know it's not that, even though I don't really know what the number is. Get the out of here." Moving on. Here's another clip I want you to listen to again between Congressman Swallwell and Cash Patel. I want you to listen really carefully here. Why? Because you're going to see that Cash Patel continues to refuse to acknowledge whether or not he has spoken with Attorney General Pamela Joe Bondi about how many times and whether or not Donald Trump's name appears in the Epstein files. Attorney General that Donald Trump's name is in the Epste files and we have released where President Trump simple question. Did you tell the attorney general that the president's name is in the Epste files? During many conversations that the attorney general and I have had on the matter of Epste, we have reviewed The question is simple. Who did you 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? Director, use the alphabet. Yes or no? No. ABC. Director, did 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 So, here's the thing. There is no confidentiality. There is no privilege. nothing like that that should cloak or hide or allow them to remain secret. These confidential, excuse me, these communications that they are having. There's no claim of confidentiality that's going to protect these conversations that are being had between Pamela Joe Bondi and Cash Patel. And according to Cash Patel, he's had a lot of conversations about the Epstein files with Bondi. And yet, he can't actually answer this question directly, obviously, because Patel is trying to play a game. He's trying to play something fast and loose. He doesn't want to be committed and tied down to a specific answer. Here's another thing that was quite notable about Patel's testimony today, especially throughout Eric Swallwell's questioning. Patel keeps on using the following words. You probably picked up on it if you were following the hearing today. Credible. Legally permissible. He keeps on saying, "We have released the information that is credible. We have released the information that is legally permissible." Number one, I'm going to call out Patel and say both of those are lies. One, there is no legal standard of credible. There is no legal standard of credible to be able to filter out information and not turn them over in their entirety to the American people. We also know that the Republicans are trying to play that game at House Oversight. Recall House Oversight issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice. Comr and other Republicans tried to insert the adjective credible that the files that were going to be turned over from the DOJ despite efforts by Congressman Robert Garcia as well as Congresswoman Summer Lee. They wanted the entirety of the files. But Comr and other Republicans were like, "No, no, no. only the credible information is going to be turned over by the DOJ. In the end, the Democrats won, but now we're hearing it again. It is a party line that is being done by the Republicans right now to justify the limited amount of information that is being turned over. That is not what the subpoena asks for that was served on DOJ. A lawfully issued and served congressional subpoena that has been served on DOJ. So for Cash Patel to keep on saying, well, credible information's been turned over. Credible by whose standard? Credible by whose definition? Oh, credible when it doesn't implicate Trump or other Republicans or other buddies of Trump. Is that what you define as credible? Cash Patel? Legally permissible. What kind of is that? He's not a lawyer. And as you heard today, Patel would often say, "Well, I'm not a lawyer, but you might, you know, or or I can't answer that question because I'm not a lawyer. You'll have to ask DOJ." No, no, no. Legally permissible. The only thing is this. You're going to see redactions for the protections of the victims, the survivors, whatever. But that's it. No other redaction should be happening here. If your name is in the Epstein files, even if it is there quote innocently, your name should be exposed. End of story. Now, another super heated exchange happened between Congresswoman Pome Gopal and Cash Patel. And when I tell you it was heated, I recommend you go and watch the entirety of the exchange. But listen to this particular one and then I'll have some comments and thoughts on the other side. Are the victims of the Jeffrey Epstein horrific trafficking ring, are they credible? Any person with information about ongoing sexual trafficking, I'm asking you if they're credible. Ma'am, I'm commenting on the evidence we have, but we have routinely asked for people to come forward with more evidence and we will look at it. And the evidence that we have was the same evidence that the Biden and Obama justice departments had. They determined, not me, they determined that that information was not credible. Patel refuses, repeatedly refuses to answer the question as to whether or not the Epstein victims and survivors are credible. It's a disgusting punting that of accountability that Patel is doing here. And now here's the thing though, and it trails off a little bit, but if you heard it, he says very clearly, Patel says very clearly at the end of that clip that the Biden and the Obama DOJ's, departments of justice, didn't find them to be credible. That's another lie. That has never been the findings by the Biden DOJ or the Obama DOJ that the Epstein victims were not credible. So for the FBI director Cash Patel to make that statement is such an egregious, disgusting indictment of the credibility and the trustworthiness of these Epstein victims and survivors. And if I were them, I would go after him. I would go after him because that's disgusting. And then here's another clip that I wanted to play for you between Gyipol and Patel. And let me tell you something. If you also listen to Patel, what he's trying to do here is he's again dodging this idea that he's going to address the credibility of the victims, but then listen what he says as to who authorized the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein. Take a listen. Victims credible. The victims not. I'll tell you what happened in the last Trump administration. Credible or not, you victims credibly came forward and you know what happened? President Trump authorized the indictments of Jeffrey Epstein called Biden, not Obama. President Trump called the entire thing a de a a Democratic hoax. So I would like to ask the gentle lady's time is expired. I gave her the additional 45 seconds she requested. The gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for his you would meet with the women who were sexually and raped and groomed at the ages of a lady from Washington years old. Are you going to cover up? Are you going to continue from his powerful men including those that might be on this committee? Okay, so I'm not sure if you heard this, but according to Cash Patel, Donald Trump quote authorized the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein. Okay, last I checked, Donald Trump, not a US attorney, not the US attorney, not the attorney general, none of those things. So why is Donald Trump quote authorizing indictments? Not only is that a egregious misstatement of law and procedure, it's just a lie, but Patel is trying to do something here, right? He's trying to elevate his boss, his cult leader, into some status that makes him seem like Donald Trump has been trying to pursue justice for the victims of Epstein when clearly we know that he hasn't because Donald Trump is the sole gatekeeper for the information about the Epstein files. Trump is the reason why we don't have the entirety of the Epstein files having been released. But then Gyipol, man, she freaking brings the heat. And what does she say? As you heard her say, she was demanding, "Why will Patel, not we with the victims, why will he continue the cover up?" And then, did you hear what she said? Cover up for rich and powerful men. Maybe even men on this committee. Let me tell you something. men on this committee. She freaking went there and I am glad because there are politicians that are implicated in the Epstein files and they themselves should not get a pass as well for their culpability in dealing with Epstein. I mean look this is just a sampling of what happened today and I was a little bit of a captive audience because I was on a plane flying from the east coast to the west coast. I find myself to be in Los Angeles right now. Um, occupied LA, um, which is just horrible and illegal and violative of the Posi Komaatus Act. Um, but I was able to watch a lot of this hearing today. And, you know, I'm glad because the total kind of show exchange that was going on today was was so dumb. It was the Republicans trying to blame the prior administrations for their failure to be able to turn over these files, even though that's not the case. Remember, it's Donald Trump who sent on the campaign trail. He made a pledge on this campaign trail that he was going to turn over the entirety of the Epstein files. And then we actually have people like uh Congressman Jamie Rasin who did an effective job of splicing together all of Cash Patel's own promises and claims that the FBI director is the person who's holding on to the black book, the client list of Epstein. And when questioned, he's like, "Oh yeah, it's just the Rolodex." And no, no, no. Rascin was not going to let that go. Rascin made it clear that according to Patel, it's actually a separate book that is kept. So, I mean, look, maybe maybe Patel and others have just been blowing, you know, smoke up other people's asses about what's going on here, but if you're going to say it and then you're going to take a role like the director of the FBI, you better be ready to have to answer questions about whether or not you're being credible and whether or not you've been telling the truth about the scope of the evidence, about the extent of the evidence, about where the evidence is, etc. Right? Here's the other thing. What what really is a huge takeaway today is this. The Epstein files are not a hoax. So even though Donald Trump wants to run and say that the Epstein files are a hoax, what we're hearing today is the Epstein files are not a hoax. The Republicans want it to go away. And the Republicans today also made it seem like there's been some pogram or persecution of Catholics and Christianity, etc. by prior FBIs. I mean, it was a total indictment of prior FBI um FBI um iterations under different directors um including Chris Ray, who was a Trump pick, right? But according to the Republicans, there was something foul and and a miss with those prior FBIs. Here's the thing, the fish rods from the head down. And I'm sure there are plenty of people that are working for the FBI that are doing a fantastic job to the best of their abilities. And you know what? Look, I'm glad I'm glad if there are palpable reductions in crime and that and that public safety is improved, etc., but I'm not seeing that to be the case. The same day that Charlie Kirk was shot, there were two kids that were shot in the school. And that's why I appreciated Congresswoman Sydney Cam Loger. She walked through all the examples of domestic terrorism at the hands of white supremacists that have been happening. We also heard that from Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. She made it very clear that this FBI doesn't give or any type of, you know, uh, you know, reassurances that they're going to prosecute the crimes that are actually the ones that are impacting people. But Cash Patel, he'll be breaking bread at Rouse when his good friend gets shot and killed and he doesn't leave immediately to be able to go fix it or investigate it. Kind of makes you wonder, right? Anyway, I wanted to touch touch base with y'all, check in with y'all. I'll see y'all tomorrow. But in the meantime, if you got some free time, go and take a listen to these. Uh there are some clips that are available on C-SPAN and it's totally worth your time. Check it out because Patel Patel is going to go home now and he's going to sit there and worry about his little note cards that he wasn't able to uh you know quickly get to to be able to answer these questions. Be mad, be outraged, demand accountability. I'll see y'all on the other side. Katie Fang here. We launched the Katy Fang News Channel in partnership with the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you the latest in legal and political news. Straight, no chaser. So, if you're a fellow trutht teller, hit that subscribe button and share the word about this channel so we can build a highinformation America
Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, attacked FBI Director Kash Patel in his opening remarks, saying that his actions have brought “danger” to the country.
“Seven months in, it’s impossible to overstate the destruction, chaos and demoralization you’ve brought to the FBI and its workforce, and the resulting danger your actions have caused to our country,” Raskin said.
Raskin called Patel a “fairytale knight,” saying that he needs to recognize that he’s running one of America’s top law enforcement agencies.
“Your supporters had hoped that you would graduate from imagining yourself a romantic fairytale knight to actually running America’s premier federal law enforcement agency,” Raskin said.
#JamieRaskin
Transcript
Brennan and continue to try to undermine President Trump. That I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. Director Patel, you and I have not had the opportunity to meet. And uh alas, you failed to respond to the eight oversight letters I've sent you over the last seven months. Um so we do have a lot of questions piling up for you. But I want to start with a word of praise. The first FBI director was Jay Edgar Hoover who uh steadfastly refused to hire women, African-Americans, and other minorities as agents. And although he was a closeted homosexual who lived in domestic partnership for decades with Clyde Tullson, he also participated in anti-gay crusades, he aggressively promoted what we would today call white Christian nationalism. and he would undoubtedly be turning over in his grave to see as one of his successors a first generation Indian-American and a proud Hindu. So I congratulate you on being a breakthrough in this sense and being a beneficiary of the civil rights movement that opened up the FBI and the federal workforce to lots of people who never would have been hired in its first decades. Alas, you shared Jay Edgar Hoover's dangerous obsession with blind loyalty over professionalism and effective public policy. For Hoover, it was blind loyalty to him in keeping his secrets. For you, it's blind loyalty to Donald Trump in keeping his secrets. During your confirmation, it was widely noted on all sides that your primary qualification was your unwavering loyalty to Trump. Unlike other directors, you had no work experience at the FBI, but you had made over a thousand media and political appearances in support of Trump's campaign. Your Senate confirmation vote was 51 to 49, the closest in history, with your opponents warning you were not qualified and had no interest in actually developing the qualifications for the job. I hoped that they were wrong. Uh, alas, they were not. While most other new FBI directors drew on their experience as FBI agents, you didn't have that. But you did write a picturebook trilogy for children ages five and up based on your experience clashing with President Trump's political enemies. In your book, you describe your literary alter ego, Kash the Knight, as a wacky, easily bored wizard carrying out King Donald's vengeance by driving his enemies out of the kingdom. In the books, King Donald is besieged by the evil Hillary Queen Town, but saved in the end by Kash. Then Catch goes on to catch mules, who are stealing the 2020 election for the great King Donald from Sleepy Joe. And then in the third book, Kash takes down the dragon of the Jalapenos, nicknamed the DOJ. Your supporters had hoped that you would graduate from imagining yourself a romantic fairy tale knight to actually running America's premier federal law enforcement agency. Alas, just as we've learned how dangerous it is to put a science denying antivaxer in charge of our public health, we've learned how dangerous it is to name as director of the FBI, a man who thinks of himself as a fairy tale knight who keeps a firebreathing dragon named DOJ at home to forcibly drive villains out of the kingdom. When Charlie Kirk was assassinated, while his killer was still on the loose, you decided you didn't need to be at FBI headquarters in Washington to work with your team while the chaotic manhunt unfolded. You spent your evening dining in a swanky Midtown Manhattan restaurant and tweeting out false information that the subject of the shooting was in custody, a statement you had to retract one hour later. Your performance was so disturbing that even the mega base was alarmed. Culture warrior Christopher Rufo who just a few months ago sat in your chair as a Republican witness observed that you performed terribly and he called for your ouster. The FBA FBI might be able to survive your delusions of grandeur and the explosively volatile temper that was on display yesterday in the Senate. But the intractable problem is that you are running the FBI not as a law enforcement agency charged with keeping the American people safe, but as a political enforcement agency working directly for the president's vengeance campaign. 7 months in, it's impossible to overstate the destruction, chaos, and demoralization you've brought to the FBI and its workforce and the resulting danger your actions have caused to our country. You've been systematically purging the FBI of its most experienced and qualified agents, division leaders, and experts in counterterror, counter intelligence, and cyber security. Precisely the people who have the expertise you lack and which the FBI and the country need. They've been expelled from the ranks of the bureau simply because they did their duty investigating crimes, including those committed by the mob that attacked the capital on January 6, 2021, and beat the hell out of more than 140 police officers, or simply because you suspected them of being insufficiently loyal to Donald Trump. You illegally sacked Brian Driscoll, the former acting director of the bureau and a decorated counterterrorism expert who worked at the FBI for nearly 20 years. According to Driscoll, Driscoll, you told him, "Your own job, quote, depended on the removal of agents who worked on the cases against the president, regardless of whether the agents chose to work on those cases or not." You added, quote, "The FBI tried to put the president in jail, and he hasn't forgotten it. You forced out the leader of the Salt Lake City field office, Metab Say, just weeks before Charlie Kirk's assassination, depriving the FBI of an experienced counterterrorism expert described by her colleagues colleagues as absolutely the best and legendary. She would have led the FBI's manhunt had she not been fired. When Trump decided that rounding up immigrants with no criminal records was more important than preventing crimes like human trafficking of women and girls, drug dealing, terrorism, and fraud, you ordered the 25 largest field offices to divert thousands of agents away from chasing down violent criminals, sex traffickers, fraudsters, and scammers to carry out this immigration crackdown. Director Patel, you treated the men and women at FBI with disrespect and paranoia. You've assembled a roving band of freelancing henchmen within your office and charged them with conducting unauthorized investigations, targeting and harassing career FBI employees. Amazingly, you forced senior leadership to repeatedly take polygraph tests to prove their political loyalty and pushed out leaders who refuse these demeaning exercises. And now we're seeing one very clear reason why you want to build a political FBI, the Epstein files. You want an FBI blindly loyal to Trump and to you as his enforcer so you can continue your cover up of a massive international sex trafficking ring with more than 1,000 victims betraying all of the survivors of the sexual violence. Before you got into this job, you called for full release of the Epstein files, telling podcaster Benny Johnson that the only reason the list was not released by DOJ and FBI was quote because of who's on that list. Upon your confirmation, you promised that quote there will be no cover-ups, no missing documents, no stone left unturned, and anyone from the prior current bureau who undermines this will be swiftly pursued. This spring, you ordered hundreds of agents to pour over all the Epstein files, but not to look for more clues about the money network or the network of human traffickers. You pulled these agents from their regular counterterrorism or drug trafficking duties to work around the clock. Some of them sleeping at their desks to conduct a frantic search to make sure Donald Trump's name and image were flagged and redacted wherever they appeared, whether an email, a text, a letter, an interview, a photograph, or a video. In May, Attorney General Bondi reportedly told Trump that his name had indeed appeared multiple times throughout the Epstein files. And not long thereafter, in July, you and the attorney general released a memo claiming that quote, "No further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted." In a few short months, how did you go from being a crusader for accountability and transparency for the Epstein files to being a part of the conspiracy and cover up? The answer is simple. You said it yourself, because of who's on that list. Donald Trump's relationship with Epstein over the years is well documented. A week ago, the oversight committee released Trump's disturbing birthday book, Note to Epstein, written over a drawing of a woman's naked body, referring to a quote, "Wonderful secret." The oversight committee obtained the note from the Epstein estate, not from the FBI, raising questions again of whether the FBI has been withholding documents. While you're unleashing the FBI to cater to Trump's desire to shut down the Epstein inquiry, the first nine months of the Trump presidency have seen a spate of political violence and domestic terror events. We saw deadly attacks on political figures on both the left and the right, the brutal assassination of Minnesota Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband in the attempted murder of Democratic State Senator John Hoffman and his wife who miraculously survived a combined 17 gunshots. We saw an arsonist set Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's residence on fire. And of course, last week, we saw the horrific cold-blooded assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah that has shaken the nation. One minute after Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck, um a 16-year-old shooter in Evergreen, Colorado, radicalized by white supremacist ideology online, opened fire and critically wounded two other students at Evergreen High School. We've seen lethal anti-semitic violence, including the murder of two young Israeli embassy staffers just blocks from the capital and then in the attack on a gathering of Jewish people in support of hostages held in Gaza in Boulder in June. We've seen continued mass shootings at schools like the domestic terror incident at a Catholic school in Minneapolis last month which killed two children and wounded 18 others. And in August, a man fired more than 500 bullets at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, killing a police officer who was a Marine veteran and a father. People like Melissa Hortman and Charlie Kirk should be able to participate in politics as elected officials or active citizens without being shot down in cold blood in the United States of America. People should also be able to go to elementary school, to middle school, to high school, to work, to the mall, and to church without being shot down in explosions of gun violence. The important position of the FBI requires a leader who puts public safety and national security and the rule of law first. I'm afraid, Director Patel, you've given us reason to believe. You've used the powers of the FBI to serve Donald Trump and his agenda of partisan retribution. You've broken your promise not to do that. You've betrayed Jeffrey Epstein's victims and survivors. You've turned your back on the career law enforcement officers of the FBI, and as a result, you've le you've left all of us less less safe than before. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. That opening statement may have been longer than any book director's ever written or anyone else has written. Um, without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's witness. Mr. Patel has been the director of the FBI since February of 2025. He previously served as chief of staff at the Department of Defense, deputy director of national intelligence with the National Security Council and also as a congressional staffer as a federal prosecutor where he focused on national security cases and he also worked as a public defender in the state of Florida. We welcome our witness, appreciate his work, and thank him for appearing here today. Will we begin by swearing you in? Director, would you please stand? Uh, raise your right hand. Do you Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief. So, help you God. Let the record reflect that the witness has answered in the affirmative. You can be seated as you are. Um, you know, you've been through this. You've been through this yesterday. Did a fine job. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record and it's entirely accordingly. We ask that you summarize your testimony. Uh, director, you may begin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Raskin, and members of the committee. I want to begin today by discussing the appalling assassination of Charlie Kirk. It's important for this FBI to be transparent without jeopardizing our investigations. So, a little bit of the timeline's important. Charlie Kirk was unfortunately assassinated on September 10th. We immediately the next day released images early in the day in local time in Utah to start the public partnership in our manhunt for the assassin and culprits. At um approximately 5:00 p.m. local time, I arrived on the ground and walk the crime scene myself. And we flew multiple FBI assets in and out to process DNA simultaneously while bringing in evidence response technicians, hostage rescue teams, and other experts to assist state and local law enforcement with their investigation. At 800 PM local on September 11th, the FBI collected and populated and promulgated at a press conference a video of the suspect on the grounds. We also released enhanced images. Due to that release that I directed and ordered, the suspect involved was apprehended and in custody at 10 p.m. local time. That's less than 2 hours after we did the video release and the photo release. So within 33 hours, that individual suspect was in custody. and his family, who has since been interrogated, specifically stated two FBI interrogators that because of the video that the FBI released at my direction and because of the photographs that they released, they identified their son. They confronted their son when he swung by their home and that's what led to his apprehension. Uh we are still the FBI has that investigation ongoing and it continues to be ongoing and I want to thank the state of Utah and the state and local authorities there and I also want to thank the attorney general and President Trump for directing resources to allow us to conduct that investigation as we have. Um under this administration the FBI has arrested more than 23,000 violent criminals. 23,000 in 7 months. That's twice as many year to date last year. We've taken over 6,000 firearms off the streets. 6,000 guns are no longer in the hands of criminals. In 7 months, we've identified and found and located 4700 child victims. That is a 35% increase year-to- date last year. We have arrested 1,500 child predators. That is a 10% increase year-to date last year. In just 7 months, we've assisted our partners with countless counterterrorism operations around the world. We've captured at the FBI four of the most top 10 wanted fugitives in the world in 7 months. To put that in perspective, that's as many as my predecessor nabbed in the entirety of the Biden administration. We got four. We got more coming. On top of that, in two weeks, thanks to the help of the CIA, we collected and captured one of the individuals responsible for the horrific Abigate bombing that led to the murder of 13 service members. We did that in two weeks. They didn't do it in the four years of the entire priority prior administration. Nationwide, we've been executing our operation summer heat, the FBI's national focus on targeting violent crime based on intelligence-driven operations. asked the citizens of Seattle, Miami, Memphis, Charlotte, Chicago, New Orleans, um, to specifically highlight New Orleans and Nashville. There has been a 250% increase in violent crime arrest in those cities alone and other mid- major cities that I've just listed. In just a few short months, we have already unleashed a thousand FBI personnel across this country. Every single state across this country is getting a plus up. This is a fiction that the FBI is short or that we are compromising the men and women in the field. They do not need to be in Washington DC. So, we're sending them into the field to each and every one of your states. Because of that, crime is at an all-time low. We had to do it because of the explosion of crime. And maybe the most important stat for Americans to realize, in just 7 months, we are on track to produce the lowest murder rate in modern US history by double digits. Those are results not of mine. Those are results of the men and women of the FBI. If you want to criticize me, bring it on. But do not attack the brave leaders in the field. We are also working 247, 365, and on the opioid epidemic that is killing more than hundreds of thousands of people a year. We have seen 1,600 kg of fentanyl off the streets so far in 7 months. Year-to- date 25% increase. To put that in perspective, that's enough to kill a third of the American population. 120 million Americans. 100,000 kilograms of cocaine and meth gone off the streets. Earlier this year, I highlighted in Cincinnati, Ohio, how we're getting creative to chase down those that were willing to do harm to our citizens. Not just by striking at the heart of the fentanyl producers, but the fentanyl precursor companies in China. And we indicted for the first time multiple companies and individuals, not just in America, but in mainland China that are producing the ingredients that produce and make fentanyl that kill our children. And we're going to keep going. Counterterrorism work, cyber attacks, and foreign adversaries are something the FBI must never sleep on. And we are not sleeping. in the counter intelligence space alone this year year to date 30% increase in counterintelligence arrests from the DPRK, Russia, Iran, and China. And I want the American people to know in this setting, there's a lot of work that the brave men and women of the FBI are doing, we just can't get into. But they don't stop. Our cyber threats, ransomware attacks, those harming our children online. We've nearly a 20% increase in indictments arrests in 7 months alone this year. We're going after those that in harm our malware, infrastructure systems, telecom systems, and energy structure. Combating salt and vault typhoons are just a little bit of the examples we're doing. Maybe most importantly, under the counterterrorism and domestic terrorism umbrella are neist violent extremist and those that label themselves 764 who wish to go online and convince children to maim and mutilate themselves and commit suicide. And we are producing record numbers of arrests under that umbrella organization. We even stopped an individual in a 764 network who wanted to conspire to kill an adolescent girl. He is now in custody. Transparency remains one of my main priorities at the FBI. And this is what I've done in my seven months at the helm. We've produced more than 33,000 pages of documents to Congress to a variety of committees, including, I believe, 12 uh 7,500 to this committee alone, if memory serves me correct. To put the 33,000 in perspective, my predecessor in 7 years produced 13,000 pages in total to the United States Congress. His predecessor in four years produced 3,000 pages in total. I repeat, I have produced 33,000 pages in seven years to this Congress and will continue to do so. I'm dedicated to restoring the trust and the mission and the integrity of the FBI and we cannot do so without congressional oversight and I promise you I will continue to do so. On the Epstein case, the original sin on the Epstein case was how was handled by Mr. Acasta when he first brought the case in 2006 7 and 8. The original case had a very limited search warrant, had a very limited search window, had a very limited investigative window. I was not there when those search warrants in that investigation was launched. I would not have done it that way. They were limited to only 3 to four years of investigations from 97 to approximately 2001 and 2002 to 2005. Mr. Acosta allowed Mr. Epstein to enter into a plea agreement where he served weekend jails for trafficking minor women. He also was allowed to leave jail to go home on the weekends. Plus, he allowed a defer a nonprosecution agreement to be signed as part of that plea deal, prohibiting future investigations from that prosecution and from that evidence and prohibiting the collection of further material. That is the original sin. We are working with Congress to produce more than any administration ever has material on Epstein. And I welcome the challenge to tell us that we are not being as transparent as the law allows. We even went to court and asked the judges to lift those prosecutorial agreements and to lift those court order seals and they denied us three times. Congress is welcome to do the same and join the fight. And I'd lastly like to focus on operation that the president led in DC. Because of this, we are taking this fight in DC to every single city across the country. 2100 arrests in the last month alone. DC has seen a 60% decrease in gun crimes, 75% decrease in carjackings, and 53% decrease in homicides in our nation's capital. And rightly so, we're bringing that fight to the streets of America. I want to thank you for your support, and I'm proud to be the director that leads this FBI into a new headquarters building that they've needed for decades, saving the taxpayer three and a half billions of dollars and also providing our workforce a safe environment. If you don't know the calamity that is the Hoover building, I invite each and every one of you to walk around. I'll give you a tour myself and you can see where the cement falls on the heads of our our employees that is only to be saved by netting just to give you an example. Thank you for support to our mission and um I do want to highlight one thing about DC. It's because the FBI gathered sources and evidence that we were able to through our source network identify the horrific murder of the DC intern Eric Tarpinian. and I've spoken to his family and um you know we are working to bring them justice and Mr. Chairman in my 16 years now my 17 years of government service if anyone has any questions about my service bring it on. Yeah. Thank you director. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule. The chair recognizes the
********************
WATCH: Raskin tells FBI chief Patel ‘you’re not keeping your word’ on releasing more Epstein files PBS NewsHour Sep 17, 2025
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., criticized FBI Director Kash Patel’s performance as the head of the nation’s lead law enforcement agency Wednesday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Before Patel became the agency's chief, “you railed against it covering up Jeffrey Epstein’s human trafficking ring,” Raskin said. “Let me refresh your memory with this.”
Raskin played a compilation of Patel's interviews.
In one clip, Patel is heard challenging the FBI to release more information related to the convicted child sex offender.
“Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are,” Patel said in 2023 on right-wing commentator Benny Johnson’s podcast.
Raskin said this clip showed that Patel emphasized the president and the FBI director's “complete authority” to release Epstein’s client list.
In another clip, Patel told Blaze Media CEO Glenn Beck that the FBI director had “direct control” of Epstein’s so-called “black book” of contacts.
In a separate hearing Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patel told lawmakers that he’s reviewed most of the Epstein files and that there was “no credible information” that Epstein trafficked to other individuals.
“You were sworn in as director more than 200 days ago. Now the black book is under your direct control,” Raskin said. “So why haven't you released the names of Epstein's co-conspirators in the rape and sex trafficking of young women and girls?”
Patel said the Trump administration has “released more material than anyone else before,” adding that prior Democratic administrations also had opportunities to release this material, but didn’t. These statements echoed what he shared with senators Tuesday.
Raskin asked why Patel he had changed his position, regarding his comments in those interviews before he became FBI director.
Patel said that “everything that has been lawfully permitted to be released has been released.”
The two devolved into a back-and-forth. Patel said that court orders limited what could be released and nodded to his words to senators Tuesday that there was an “original sin” that undermined the case from the start, namely a plea deal approved by one of his predecessors that made it harder to access materials in the case.
Again, Patel lambasted the Obama and Biden administrations for not doing more. “If you want to blame me, that's fine,” he said. “But now you're blaming the men and women who conducted this –”
Raskin cut him off.
“I'm not blaming anybody other than you,” Raskin said. “You're not keeping your word.” Watch PBS News for daily, breaking and live news, plus special coverage.
Transcript
Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Director Patel, before you join the FBI, you railed against it for covering up Jeffrey Epstein's human trafficking ring. Let me refresh your memory with this clip. Has Epstein's list, they're sitting on it. That doesn't seem like something you should do. You're protecting the world's foremost predator. That seems like an evil thing to do, regardless of who may be embarrassed in the release of that list. Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederist, um, the, the largest scale pederas in human history. Simple, because of who's on that list. So you've finished that December 2023 interview with the challenge to the FBI in harsh words for Republicans in Congress for not getting the Epstein files out to the public. You see this clip. Boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are. You said you emphasized that the president and the FBI director each had complete authority to release Epstein's client list. You said Epstein's black book is under the direct control of the director of the FBI. Look at this clip. This way off the topic, but who has Jeffrey Epstein's Black, Black Book FBI. but who That is that that I mean there's that's under control of the director of the FBI. All right, so you were sworn in as director more than 200 days ago. Now the black book is under your direct control. So why haven't you released the names of Epstein's co-conspirators in the rape and sex trafficking of young women and girls. The Rolodex, which is what everybody colloquially refers to as the Black Book has been released. Oh, no, you're talking about what the journalist got 5 years ago. No, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what you were talking about there, the Black Book under the direct control of FBI director. We have released more material than anyone else before. The Biden administration, the Obama administration had the exact opportunities to release this material, and they never did. And if you are selling the men and women of the FBI going after child? Hang on, you said we're not going after child predators. 15 00 child predators arrested this year. 35%. I reclaim my 4700 child. Chairman, I'm going to reclaim my time if you could instruct the witness. Um, why have you changed your position? There you were saying it's under the direct control of the FBI director, and all of it should be released. Why, why do you change that has been lawfully permitted to be released has been released. And as I told you, the investigation was limited. And let me make something crystal clear. I never said Jeffrey Epstein didn't traffic other people, other women, and they're not other victims. This is the investigation we were given from 2006, 2077, and 2088, and the search warrants from 2006, 207, and 208. That's what we're working with, have you released all of the stuff that the FBI has seized from Epstein's house, the computers, the emails the file cabinets, the documents. What about the financial records? Have you released all of that? Everything the court has allowed us to court are you talking about? Three separate federal courts have come in and said we're talking about the evidence you've got. It's got nothing to do with what those courts have. Do you have any idea how the law works. Do you want me to break the law in a federal judge's order? No, I want you to follow your own word, Director Patel. You said up there it was under the direct control of the FBI director. He had the black book I have direct control over We have gone to court. You haven't complete your sentence. Everything you have direct control over, you said, have gone to court and everything we have direct control over complete your sentence. You said everything they're releasing. You'd like to complete his answer. You, you began the sentence. Everything you have direct control over I, and then you stop that sentence. You've released everything that you have direct control over. I have direct control over and can lawfully release. If you're not familiar with the court orders, that's not my fault. I look at that. I'm perfectly familiar with them, but how did we prosecute um Gallaine Maxwell? She was, she was prosecuted with the investigatory material that was collected from 2001 and 2005 because of the non-prosecution agreements and the court orders on the investigations and search warrants. We were not able to develop new information, and oh by the way, Jeffrey Epstein was out for 12 years, and the Obama and Biden administration did nothing to look at his work, his pedophile network. If you want to blame me, that's fine. But now you're blaming the men and women who conducted this. I'm not blaming anybody other than you. You're not keeping your word. You said that you would release all of the materials under direct control more information on Epstein than I have. Has anyone much more Comey did right, much, much more. I'm excuse me, much more has come out in the days since the American people and Congress have been demanding it, but it's coming out in dribs and drabs. Why don't you just release the entire file as you promised to do. I literally just told you there are multiple federal court orders. I'm not going to break the law to satisfy your curiosity. You didn't join us when we filed court to release the court orders. You could have. You have lawyers. You could have shown up. You didn't do that. That's a tiny fraction of the material we're talking about. It is tiny fraction. How do you know that? Have you seen everything? It's all misdirected the
****************************************
WATCH: Rep. Pramila Jayapal Gets Into a Heated Exchange with Kash Patel Over Epstein Victims | N18G CNBC-TV18 Sep 17
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., got into a heated exchange with Patel over whether he believes Epstein's victims are credible.
Kash Patel, Democratic Rep. Jayapal clash over Epstein victims during House Judiciary Hearing | CNBC TV18 "Mr. Patel, are the victims of the Jeffrey Epstein horrific trafficking ring, are they credible?" Jayapal asked. Patel sidestepped the question and said he would welcome new information on the case. "We have routinely asked for people to come forward with more evidence and we will look at it," he said. Patel, Democratic Rep. Jayapal clash over Epstein victims , continued "You are not answering the question," Jayapal said. "I have. You just don't like the answer," he said. The exchange ended with Jayapal asking if he'd meet with the victims, and yelling, "Are you going to continue to cover up for the rich and powerful men, including those that might be on this committee?" as Jordan told her that her time had expired.
joined the FBI. You had very strong opinions about what the FBI was hiding regarding Jeffrey Epstein. In a September 2023 interview with Glenn Beck, you said the Blackbook is under the quote direct control of the director of the FBI. In December 2023, you said, "Let us know who the pedophiles are." Even for a short time after becoming FBI director, in February of 2025, you tweeted, quote, "There will be no coverups, no missing documents, no stone left unturned." In June, you told Joe Rogan, quote, "We've reviewed all the information. We're going to give you every single thing we have and can." But then suddenly in July, everything changed. You and Attorney General Pam Bondi released one video and said that there was nothing more to see. Your July memo says you uncovered more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence, but that you had decided no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. That is a quote. I think what happened, Mr. Patel, is that suddenly you discovered that Donald Trump's name was all over these files and you started a giant cover up. So, you are under oath, Mr. Patel. You just testified to Mr. Swalwell that you did not speak to the president about the Epstein files. To your knowledge, did Attorney General Pam Bondi speak to the president about what was in the Epstein files? I can't speak for Attorney General Pam Bondi. So to your knowledge, you don't have any information. The question was, do you have any knowledge? Do you have any knowledge? I can't speak. You are refusing to answer the question. So, let me tell you that the Wall Street Journal reported that in May, Bondi told Trump that he was in the Epstein files and at the same meeting said that the DOJ did not plan to release the files. Yesterday you testified to Senator Kennedy that there was quote no credible information that Epstein trafficked girls to anyone else and that you have quote continuously and publicly ask the public to come forward with more information and we'll look into it today. In response to Mr. Massey's question, you appear to say that the survivors were not credible. These are survivors. That's not at all what I said. Okay, great. And I'm going to ask you this in a second, but let me tell you about the survivors and let's bring them up here into the room. These are women who came to the hill and testified that they were groomed and raped at the age of 14 and 16 years old and they called to meet with the president and to meet with the FBI and to have people investigate their claims. Some of them have never testified before. If you are so interested in getting the public to submit any information, why have you not met with them? You said you haven't met with them. Have you met with them? I'll give you one more chance. My job as the FBI director is to inform the answer yes or no to whether or not you met with these women who were sexually abused and raped. 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 and you talk about coverups, man. You talk about coverups. Where were you during the Obama and Biden administrations when these so-called coverups were going on? Why did anyone in those administrations talk to any of these purported witnesses? I have a regular order single person to provide credible information. Time belongs to the gentle lady from Washington. You accuse the witness of something, he's allowed to respond. That's how it works. Listen, he didn't even Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You have always been fair. But this is not fair and you will get your This is my time and he said that the witnesses were not seconds of time. I'm going to get an additional minute of time because that's what you'll get a minute. You'll get some seconds. What we think is is under five minutes. You don't get to demand how much time you get. That's not how it works. Mr. Patel, are the victims of the Jeffrey Epstein horrific trafficking ring, are they credible? Any person with information about ongoing sexual trafficking? I'm asking you if they're credible. Ma'am, I'm commenting on the evidence we have. And we have routinely asked for people to come forward with more evidence, and we will look at it. And the evidence that we have was the same evidence that the Biden and Obama Justice Department had. And they determined, not me, they determined that that information was not He's not letting me even ask my questions. You ask the questions, he gives an answer. You don't, you may not like what he says, but that doesn't mean you get to interrupt him. Answering my question, Mr. Chairman, could we restore the gentle lady 45 seconds so she can We'll give her additional 30 seconds, which is what I said. I'm going to keep taking my time because you'll take the time that you get. You are not answering the question. The question is, I have, you just don't like the answer. Are these women are these women credible? It's a yes or no answer. I have answered the question. I'm telling you, I'm the only FBI director that has welcomed new information in this case. This administration is the only one that has welcomed any new information in this case. Is there a yes or no? Present new credible information. Present new information. Are the victims credible or victims not? I'll tell you what happened in the last Trump administration. credible or not, you victims credibly came forward and you know what happened? President Trump authorized the indictments of Jeffrey Epstein called not Obama called the entire thing a Democratic hoax. So I would like to ask you the gentle lady's time expired. I gave her the additional 45 seconds she requested. The gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for his meet with the women who were sexually abused and raped and groomed ages from Washington years old. Are you going to cover up? Are you going to continue? I'm going to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for his powerful men including those that might be on this committee. I can yell too, Mr. Chairman, but I don't want to yell above. The time belongs to the gentleman from New Jersey. Are you going to testify? Mr. Patel, go ahead. Will you allow them to testify to you? Mr. Patel Patel. Mr. Patel, thank you for being here. I know it's been an interesting and difficult two days. And I wasn't going to talk about the Epstein thing because there's a lot of other issues that affect the FBI. But I have to say a few words. I just I've sat here. I've listened to this. I've watched it. And you know, my Democratic colleagues are so concerned now. Mr. Patel all of a sudden, where were they last year? Where were they the year before? Where were they the year before that? Where was the last president in any of this? All I know, the only thing I see is a single letter from the ranking member that was sent in 2019 that he didn't like the plea deal and some people signed on to that. Most of the truth, the real truth, let's be honest, let's be intellectually honest. The real truth is we didn't hear from them at all. anybody of them, hardly any of them ever mentioned it. Some of them didn't mention it at all until the beginning of this year, earlier in the year it started. Not one Democrat asked Director Ray. We all remember Director Ray was here. Not once, not twice, multiple times. Nobody asked Director Ray about Epstein before this committee. Nobody was that concerned. Where was the concern for the victims then? Where was the moral righteousness then? Where was the outrage then? Where was the sense of duty then? Where was the desire for accountability then? Where was the urgency for justice then? Most of all, where the hell was the integrity then? You know what the truth is? Let's just say it, man. I like tell the truth time. The truth is it's politically useful for them to try to do this now even though they didn't give a damn about it in the past. And you know what? That's an insult to the victims and that's an insult to America. Continue to do the work you're doing. Continue to uncover what needs to be uncovered. One real quick thing before I say anything to 911. We know that was mishandled by the past director and by the past FBI. There are family members here. There are family members who are concerned. God almighty, we want to get to the truth of that. I ask you please to meet with them to talk to them and to investigate this with truth. You know in the administration we went through a very dark and difficult period of time. The FBI trust was broken with the people. Catholics were this is the stuff we've been talking about were labeled radical threats for praying in their churches with their rosaries. Parents at school boards were called terrorists for standing up for their children. Hindu holy men in New Jersey. We have a large the largest Hindu temple in the world. They were attacked. They were put up against the wall with guns to their heads. So it isn't just a Catholic or Christian thing. American Jews were targeted in colleges and universities. And a lot of folks in the FBI in the past FBI, not this one, didn't give a damn. We can't go back to targeting religion. We can't go back to silencing free speech. The Biden administration did that. So I got questions for you. thought hopefully thoughtful questions that you can answer for us in a thoughtful way. How is this FBI now under your leadership? How are restoring trust for Catholics, for Hindus, for Jews, for parents, for all the other for just American people that were targeted by FISA because they had a different viewpoint? How are we restoring that trust in the FBI? Multiple ways, sir. One and maybe most importantly is through transparency and providing the American public with the material so they can see read it themselves as to what the abuses were in the past. Whether it relates to the Catholic memo or the Hindu incident you talked about at the largest temple in North America. Any institution of faith and any member of faith will not be investigated by this FBI because they are men and women of faith ever. Period. And nor should they. Nor should they. I don't mean to interrupt you, but my god, of all the amendments to the freedom of speech, freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I know you're standing up for that. Continue. I'm sorry. No, that's it. Sorry. Okay. The Richmond memo was driven by a reliance on sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center. You know, the words sound nice, but the organization's not so nice. And we've seen the Anti-Defamation League distort data that counts as 12 as violence. Have you been able to identify and eliminate these kinds of partisan sources? We welcome all sources, but we want objectivity and neutrality and decency. We decency in the way we report all this. Have you been able to uncover any information there? How do we make sure our sources are good in the future? We have reviewed the source processes that infiltrate any any institutions of faith and they will no longer be going into institutions of faith. um they will be directed towards criminal activity and protecting the homeland. The two most important missions the FBI has and that's what we're going to continue to do. Good. And I'll say this, there was a lot of bull today. A lot of you know what and I'm not going to say it because I respect the institution so much going on around here. Continue to do the work of the people. You are here for that reason. The administration is here for that reason. It was weaponized and politicized the FBI in the past. Hope to God we never ever see that again. One of the darkest parts of American history. Thank you, Mr. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent. Yields back. The gentleman from New York is recognized for UC. I would like to introduce a CNN article uh that explains how an alleged top leader of the MS-13 gang was dismissed. His case was dismissed in Brooklyn so that he could be deported back to El Salvador even though he was charged with murder. Without objection. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have some unanimous consent. The lady from Washington's recognized. Uh I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article titled Justice Department told Trump in May that his name is among many in the Epstein files. Without objection. Uh, I have another one um that is uh a July 2025 article by the New York Times entitled, "How a frantic scouring of the Epstein files consumed the Justice Department," stating that DOJ and FBI employees reviewing the Epstein files were instructed to flag any mentions of Trump and other celebrities. Objection. And I have another unanimous consent request to enter into the record an August 2025 article by the Guardian entitled, "Glain Maxwell hinted at Epstein's ties to Trump officials. Why wasn't she pressed for names, stating that Maxwell told Deputy US Attorney Todd Blanch that some of the quote cast of characters around Epstein are in Trump's cabinet?" Without objection, chair now recognize the gentle lady from Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Patel for coming before us to testify today. Um I I am concerned by your repeated claims that you're not able to disclose anything further about the Epstein investigation in files and that there's no evidence of a broader conspiracy or other people who should be charged because the American people aren't be buying that you've been transparent or that there's nothing further to be seen. Um in your exchange with my colleague Mr. Roy, you reiterated something that I heard you say yesterday in your Senate testimony, and that is under your direction, the FBI will always follow the money. Is that right? The money, did you say? Yes. Yes. You said you'll follow the money. That's great. And just now you said you welcome the opportunity to investigate new evidence. So, there has been significant recent reporting just in the last couple weeks that after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested, four major banks flagged more than 1 5 billion dollar in suspicious transactions connected to him that suggested a massive conspiracy related to his child sex trafficking activities. Director Patel, has the FBI reviewed the 1.5 billion in suspicious bank transactions flagged to the government relating to Epstein and his co-conspirators? I know the FBI has reviewed numerous SARS. I don't know the totality of that number. Okay. Do you can you provide us with that number? I'll get back to you. Okay. And have you initiated any new investigation of those bank transactions since say September 8th when the new reporting came out? I'll check with the Treasury Department because they're the lead on that. Okay. So, Director Patel, how many individuals or entities um has the FBI interviewed, subpoenaed, or compelled to testify? Can you give us those numbers with respect to these bank transactions? Uh, not off the top of my head. I often work with Treasury. Okay. Um we're concerned, you see, because you say you're going after child predators, but obviously this is how you follow the money is if you follow the bank transactions that um apparently enabled the child sex trafficking. Would you agree? It's one of the valuable investigative tools is to follow the money. Okay. Um, have Jeffrey Epstein's victims have asked us to ask you whether or not you've investigated Epstein's lawyers, the lawyers who facilitated those payments. Have you um subpoenaed or questioned any of those lawyers? So, in 2018 and 19, what I recollect is many, if not every one of those lawyers was part of the investigation, but you weren't there at that time. I wasn't there. Okay. So, can you get us the names and the numbers of who was investigated then with respect to those lawyers? As long as I'm allowed to release it. Absolutely. Okay. Well, if we provide you with subpoenas, I assume you can release it. Is that right? We have a current subpoena and we're working with Congress to provide it. Okay. Um, you've said that the Aosta investigation had an original sin. What do you mean by that? Basically, if you're looking at an actual pedophile ring, what you should not do is limit the time frame in which you're legally able to collect information. So, search warrants that Mr. Aosta utilized in 2006 and 7 leading to 2008 plea agreement had a very specific narrow window of years, I think three or four years. And so, information pursuant to legal process wasn't collected for 10 years or 15 years or 20 years. It also in uh subpoenas were not sent out to hundreds of witnesses at the time, hundreds of victims at the time. None of that was done. None of these people were put in grand juries. And so the totality of information from the jump instead of being this big was like this. And that in my opinion is not how you run an investigation if you're trying to break a sex trafficking ring. So you're now in charge of the FBI. Why haven't you done that investigation? Great question. And here's the answer. simply because I am not able to go back 20 years and collect information that the courts had decided was already subject to search warrants. They have said this was in the investigation. There's a nonprosecution agreement out of that plea. And when the case was reopened, and this is where it comes into play, when the case was reopened in 2018 and 2019, the search warrants again were limited to the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein. Now whether that's right or wrong, that's a different discussion. But I'm telling you that's the information. Well, I think that is a different discussion and I think the discussion we'd like to have today is why you aren't following the money with respect to the broader um conspiracy that it has been reported in the New York Times and elsewhere. and that if you really want to attack the issue, if you wanted to attack the issue, if you wanted to get to the bottom of it, if you wanted to disclose what really was involved in the Epstein files, the Epstein coverup, that you would be taking very different actions that you are today. Um, I do want to seek unanimous consent to enter into the record the uh New York Times September 8th, 2025 article, How JP Morgan Enabled the Crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. Objection. and also an article dated se uh July 17th, 2025 in the Epstein case. Follow the money. Objection. Okay. Thank you. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Sherman, gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Thank you much. Um pursuant to clause 2K6 of rule 11. I move that the committee subpoena the CEOs of four banks. JP Morgan, that's Jamie Diamond, Bank of New York Melon, Robin Vince, Bank of America, Brian Moyahan, and Deutsche Bank Christian Sewing. uh in order to get the suspicious transaction reports. These four banks have flagged to the government $1.5 billion dollar in suspicious transactions related to the sex trafficking crimes and conspiracy of Epstein Maxwell and all of their collaborators. And as you know, Mr. Chairman, we got the SARS reports for Hunter Biden totaling around $20 million. And so these $ 1.5 billion in SARS reports we should get, especially since the director doesn't seem to be forthcoming. And I requested, you know, that we do this immediately. I think the director's been very forthcoming.
Trump’s FBI Director CRUMBLES During House CROSS-EXAM Katie Phang Sep 17, 2025
Kash Patel gets slammed by House Judiciary Committee Democrats today, just underscoring his incompetence for the job as FBI Director. Katie Phang highlights some of Patel’s most egregious statements about the Epstein Files & critiques the sham questioning by Republicans.
Transcript
Hi everyone. As you can see, not my typical studio recording setting, but I wanted to come on because I wanted to talk about this insanity that happened today with Kash Patel testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. As you know, Cash Patel ringing in day two of showing how absolutely incompetent he is to be able to hold the job of director of the FBI. Now, I know most of us probably have certain ideas about the type of person who should hold that job and and and the role that that person plays. And I can tell you whatever you think it is, it's not Kash Patel. And I don't know if you've been seeing clips during the day posted on the media. But I'm going to go through a few of them with you right now to show exactly how bad Cash Patel is at what he's doing, but more importantly, how much of a partisan hack Kash Patel is. He is truly the Trump administration DEI hire. Because if you're going to use that standard from the Trump administration that DEI hires are incompetent, incapable of doing their job, um only um doing what somebody tells them to do and that they're not qualified because listen, I don't think that that's the definition of DEI. But if you're going to use that Republican DEI standard, then that is exactly what Kash Patel is. He is the Trump administration's prime example of a DEI hire. And of course, it doesn't hurt that he happens to be a minority. So then Donald Trump can say, "Oh, look. I'm checking off that box." But here, take a quick listen because there were some really heated moments today between Patel and some of the Democrats. And I just want to run through a couple of them. So take a quick listen to this one between Eric Swalwell, congressman from California, and Kash Patel.
Director, the first time you saw Donald Trump's name was in the Epstein files. Did you close the files or keep reading?
I have reviewed not the entirety of the files. So I have --
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.
All righty. So, how many of you would think that if your job as FBI director that you would have actually spent the time reviewing the entirety of the Epstein files? As we can see, Patel is saying that he actually hasn't done it himself. He said, quote, "Personally, I haven't reviewed the entirety of the Epstein files." So, what does that mean? He's either actually getting the information from somebody else who has, which again is a I think absurd filter to be using if you're supposed to be answering questions in front of Congress, if you're supposed to be reporting to the president of the United States, and to frankly if you are supposed to be telling the American people in the interest of quote full transparency, which is what you've promised cash Patel, then you really should have looked at the entirety of the Epstein files.
So now we know that Patel has no basis grounded in fact to answer the questions that he is being asked today. So if that's the case, why not just say I cannot answer these questions because I have not personally reviewed these files. No, what he's doing is he's cherry-picking information and he's cobbling together to be able to serve his dear cult leader so that he doesn't look bad. Actually, frankly, both of them, Patel and Trump.
Now, moving on. Here's another exchange between Patel and Swalwell. Now, this one's a little bit longer, and it's pretty funny because Patel refuses refuses to tell Congressman Swalwell how many times Donald Trump's name appears in the Epstein files. Take a listen.
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. We have not released anyone's name in the file that has not been credible. Could it at least release every piece of legally permissible information? You can characterize the numbers however you want it.
Claiming my time, director, it sounds like if you don't know the number, it could at least be a thousand times, which --
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 and keep going reclaiming your time because the people of California are being underserved by your representation is not implicated.
Why not release everything that involves --
we have released everything the president and anyone else's side that is credible and lawfully be able to be released.
Some of you may be saying, "Well, obviously Katie, if he hasn't reviewed the entirety of the Epstein files, how can he possibly be able to say how many times Donald Trump's name appears?" But you know what Patel has never denied today? He has never denied the reporting that the FBI has tasked a lot of people to go and scour the entirety of the Epstein files to flag every single time that Donald Trump's name has appeared. And we know that that has happened according to all of the media reports. So, if that's the case, don't you think somebody would have reported back to the director of the FBI that Donald Trump's name appears x number of times? It's remarkable though because if you hear Congressman Swalwell, he gives a range. He gives a number. And of course, Patel's like, "No, it's not that. No, it's not that. No, it's not that. But I know it's not that, even though I don't really know what the number is. Get the fuck out of here."
Moving on. Here's another clip I want you to listen to again between Congressman Swalwell and Kash Patel. I want you to listen really carefully here. Why? Because you're going to see that Kash Patel continues to refuse to acknowledge whether or not he has spoken with Attorney General Pamela Joe Bondi, about how many times, and whether or not Donald Trump's name appears in the Epstein files.
Attorney General that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files --
and we have released where President Trump --
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 did you 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? Director,
use the alphabet.
Yes or no?
No. ABC.
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 --
So, here's the thing. There is no confidentiality. There is no privilege. nothing like that that should cloak or hide or allow them to remain secret. These communications that they are having. There's no claim of confidentiality that's going to protect these conversations that are being had between Pamela Joe Bondi and Kash Patel. And according to Cash Patel, he's had a lot of conversations about the Epstein files with Bondi. And yet, he can't actually answer this question directly, obviously, because Patel is trying to play a game. He's trying to play something fast and loose. He doesn't want to be committed and tied down to a specific answer.
Here's another thing that was quite notable about Patel's testimony today, especially throughout Eric Swalwell's questioning. Patel keeps on using the following words. You probably picked up on it if you were following the hearing today. "Credible." Legally permissible. He keeps on saying, "We have released the information that is credible. We have released the information that is legally permissible."
Number one, I'm going to call out Patel and say both of those are lies. One, there is no legal standard of credible. There is no legal standard of credible to be able to filter out information and not turn them over in their entirety to the American people. We also know that the Republicans are trying to play that game at House Oversight. Recall House Oversight issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice. Comer and other Republicans tried to insert the adjective "credible" that the files that were going to be turned over from the DOJ despite efforts by Congressman Robert Garcia as well as Congresswoman Summer Lee. They wanted the entirety of the files. But Comer and other Republicans were like, "No, no, no. Only the "credible" information is going to be turned over by the DOJ. In the end, the Democrats won, but now we're hearing it again. It is a party line that is being done by the Republicans right now to justify the limited amount of information that is being turned over. That is not what the subpoena asks for that was served on DOJ. A lawfully issued and served congressional subpoena that has been served on DOJ. So for Cash Patel to keep on saying, well, credible information's been turned over. Credible by whose standard? Credible by whose definition? Oh, credible when it doesn't implicate Trump or other Republicans or other buddies of Trump. Is that what you define as credible? Cash Patel? Legally permissible. What kind of is that? He's not a lawyer. And as you heard today, Patel would often say, "Well, I'm not a lawyer, but you might, you know, or or I can't answer that question because I'm not a lawyer. You'll have to ask DOJ." No, no, no. Legally permissible. The only thing is this. You're going to see redactions for the protections of the victims, the survivors, whatever. But that's it. No other redaction should be happening here. If your name is in the Epstein files, even if it is there quote innocently, your name should be exposed. End of story. Now, another super heated exchange happened between Congresswoman Pome Gopal and Cash Patel. And when I tell you it was heated, I recommend you go and watch the entirety of the exchange. But listen to this particular one and then I'll have some comments and thoughts on the other side. Are the victims of the Jeffrey Epstein horrific trafficking ring, are they credible? Any person with information about ongoing sexual trafficking, I'm asking you if they're credible. Ma'am, I'm commenting on the evidence we have, but we have routinely asked for people to come forward with more evidence and we will look at it. And the evidence that we have was the same evidence that the Biden and Obama justice departments had. They determined, not me, they determined that that information was not credible. Patel refuses, repeatedly refuses to answer the question as to whether or not the Epstein victims and survivors are credible. It's a disgusting punting that of accountability that Patel is doing here. And now here's the thing though, and it trails off a little bit, but if you heard it, he says very clearly, Patel says very clearly at the end of that clip that the Biden and the Obama DOJ's, departments of justice, didn't find them to be credible. That's another lie. That has never been the findings by the Biden DOJ or the Obama DOJ that the Epstein victims were not credible. So for the FBI director Cash Patel to make that statement is such an egregious, disgusting indictment of the credibility and the trustworthiness of these Epstein victims and survivors. And if I were them, I would go after him. I would go after him because that's disgusting. And then here's another clip that I wanted to play for you between Gyipol and Patel. And let me tell you something. If you also listen to Patel, what he's trying to do here is he's again dodging this idea that he's going to address the credibility of the victims, but then listen what he says as to who authorized the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein. Take a listen. Victims credible. The victims not. I'll tell you what happened in the last Trump administration. Credible or not, you victims credibly came forward and you know what happened? President Trump authorized the indictments of Jeffrey Epstein called Biden, not Obama. President Trump called the entire thing a de a a Democratic hoax. So I would like to ask the gentle lady's time is expired. I gave her the additional 45 seconds she requested. The gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for his you would meet with the women who were sexually and raped and groomed at the ages of a lady from Washington years old. Are you going to cover up? Are you going to continue from his powerful men including those that might be on this committee? Okay, so I'm not sure if you heard this, but according to Cash Patel, Donald Trump quote authorized the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein. Okay, last I checked, Donald Trump, not a US attorney, not the US attorney, not the attorney general, none of those things. So why is Donald Trump quote authorizing indictments? Not only is that a egregious misstatement of law and procedure, it's just a lie, but Patel is trying to do something here, right? He's trying to elevate his boss, his cult leader, into some status that makes him seem like Donald Trump has been trying to pursue justice for the victims of Epstein when clearly we know that he hasn't because Donald Trump is the sole gatekeeper for the information about the Epstein files. Trump is the reason why we don't have the entirety of the Epstein files having been released. But then Gyipol, man, she freaking brings the heat. And what does she say? As you heard her say, she was demanding, "Why will Patel, not we with the victims, why will he continue the cover up?" And then, did you hear what she said? Cover up for rich and powerful men. Maybe even men on this committee. Let me tell you something. men on this committee. She freaking went there and I am glad because there are politicians that are implicated in the Epstein files and they themselves should not get a pass as well for their culpability in dealing with Epstein. I mean look this is just a sampling of what happened today and I was a little bit of a captive audience because I was on a plane flying from the east coast to the west coast. I find myself to be in Los Angeles right now. Um, occupied LA, um, which is just horrible and illegal and violative of the Possi Komitatus Act. Um, but I was able to watch a lot of this hearing today. And, you know, I'm glad because the total kind of show exchange that was going on today was was so dumb. It was the Republicans trying to blame the prior administrations for their failure to be able to turn over these files, even though that's not the case. Remember, it's Donald Trump who sent on the campaign trail. He made a pledge on this campaign trail that he was going to turn over the entirety of the Epstein files. And then we actually have people like uh Congressman Jamie Rasin who did an effective job of splicing together all of Cash Patel's own promises and claims that the FBI director is the person who's holding on to the black book, the client list of Epstein. And when questioned, he's like, "Oh yeah, it's just the Rolodex." And no, no, no. Rascin was not going to let that go. Rascin made it clear that according to Patel, it's actually a separate book that is kept. So, I mean, look, maybe maybe Patel and others have just been blowing, you know, smoke up other people's asses about what's going on here, but if you're going to say it and then you're going to take a role like the director of the FBI, you better be ready to have to answer questions about whether or not you're being credible and whether or not you've been telling the truth about the scope of the evidence, about the extent of the evidence, about where the evidence is, etc. Right? Here's the other thing. What what really is a huge takeaway today is this. The Epstein files are not a hoax. So even though Donald Trump wants to run and say that the Epstein files are a hoax, what we're hearing today is the Epstein files are not a hoax. The Republicans want it to go away. And the Republicans today also made it seem like there's been some pogram or persecution of Catholics and Christianity, etc. by prior FBIs. I mean, it was a total indictment of prior FBI um FBI um iterations under different directors um including Chris Ray, who was a Trump pick, right? But according to the Republicans, there was something foul and and a miss with those prior FBIs. Here's the thing, the fish rods from the head down. And I'm sure there are plenty of people that are working for the FBI that are doing a fantastic job to the best of their abilities. And you know what? Look, I'm glad I'm glad if there are palpable reductions in crime and that and that public safety is improved, etc., but I'm not seeing that to be the case. The same day that Charlie Kirk was shot, there were two kids that were shot in the school. And that's why I appreciated Congresswoman Sydney Cam Loger. She walked through all the examples of domestic terrorism at the hands of white supremacists that have been happening. We also heard that from Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. She made it very clear that this FBI doesn't give or any type of, you know, uh, you know, reassurances that they're going to prosecute the crimes that are actually the ones that are impacting people. But Cash Patel, he'll be breaking bread at Rouse when his good friend gets shot and killed and he doesn't leave immediately to be able to go fix it or investigate it. Kind of makes you wonder, right? Anyway, I wanted to touch touch base with y'all, check in with y'all. I'll see y'all tomorrow. But in the meantime, if you got some free time, go and take a listen to these. Uh there are some clips that are available on C-SPAN and it's totally worth your time. Check it out because Patel Patel is going to go home now and he's going to sit there and worry about his little note cards that he wasn't able to uh you know quickly get to to be able to answer these questions. Be mad, be outraged, demand accountability. I'll see y'all on the other side. Katie Fang here. We launched the Katy Fang News Channel in partnership with the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you the latest in legal and political news. Straight, no chaser. So, if you're a fellow truth- teller, hit that subscribe button and share the word about this channel so we can build a high-information America
*******************
Rep. Dan Goldman asks Kash Patel about Trump's name in Epstein files CBS News Sep 17, 2025
During the House Judiciary Committee hearing, Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman of New York asked FBI Director Kash Patel if President Trump's name appeared in the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Patel said the FBI has "released where President Trump's name is in the Epstein files" and "all credible information" that the agency is allowed to make public.
Transcript
The gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr. Goldman, Mr. Patel, does Donald Trump appear anywhere in the Epstein files? I'm sorry. Could you say that again? It's not a complicated question. Does Donald Trump appear anywhere in the Epstein files? I didn't say it was a complicated question. I just didn't hear you. So, my apologies. Um, we have released uh where Mr. where President Trump's names in the Epstein files and everybody else um and all credible information that we are illegally allowed to release has been released. All right. So, let's go through that. You're you're referring to court orders that prohibit you from releasing grand jury testimony under rule 6E. Is that what you're referring to when you say as the law allows? That's a piece of it. Really? What other what other evidence does the do those three court orders you cited pro prohibit from being released? Information that was collected pursuant to those search warrants that were limited fashion. Wrong. That's not what the court order says and that's not under 6E. And you're talking and I said that's 6E and I said there was others and I'm answering that there are sealed court order documents. There are protective orders for they are unsealed as part of discovery given to Gileain Maxwell. They are no longer sealed. That's just not true. We can argue about it all you want. Okay. Well, you agree that there are So, you're wait your testimony here is that the reason why you are not releasing all of the videos that you have acknowledged there are so many and that the FBI spent thousands of hours of reviewing the photographs, all of the and the photographs that you have. You're saying that the you're not releasing those because there's a court order requiring them to be sealed. Is that your testimony? Never said that about the videos. On the totality of the videos, of the thousands of images that were seized pursuant to the search warrants executed at the time, the overwhelming majority of that video is pornographic material that was downloaded from the internet and child sexual abuse material. We will never release that. Well, as you should not release the victims, but if there are videos that relate to others who Epstein trafficked to, such as maybe Prince Andrew or photographs that you have total control to release. Yes. And if it exists, so why haven't you released it? Why are you supposing that that is a fact when in fact it is false? Are you saying that? saying that none of the videos relate to anything relevant to the Jeffrey Epstein trafficking. Every single video that we have collected pursuant to the prior search warrants has been examined for the last 10 years and every single video has been utilized for whatever prosecutions were able to be legally brought. I'm not asking about prosecutions. I'm asking about why you aren't releasing the full Epstein files, including the names of people who were involved in the sex ring that you promised to do before you became FBI director. I just told you I'm not going to release downloaded porn. I'm not asking about that. Fine. I'm asking about all the other files. What other videos? Tell me. Tell me. You're That's what I'm asking. You're saying there are no videos that would be relevant to anyone else involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex pursuant to Mr. Aosta's collection of information based on the search warrants. That's all we have in our possession. And I'm I'm asking you, but that stuff that's all we got. I'm not asking all you got. I'm asking you in that stuff. There's nothing that's related to the uh to any other sex traff any other people engaged with Epstein in underage sex. That's correct. To my knowledge, no. Okay, let's talk about the witness interviews. 302s of witness interviews. Those are not subject to the court order. Those are not subject to any fictional sealed order for a search warrant. Why aren't you releasing those with the redacted names of the victims? We are releasing as much as legally allowed. That's why we went back. How is that? How is that not legally allowed? Sir, do you know how court orders work? Do you know how protective orders work? Actually, Mr. Patel, I was a prosecu a real prosecutor for 10 years. I know exactly. So, I was a and I want to understand what the court order prevents you from releasing witness statements that the FBI took. You should know that as a real prosecutor, when the court hand downs a protective order and a motion to seal, the material is sealed unless that your testimony here is that all of those witness statements are under a court order, a protective order. We are providing everything we can legally provide. No, that's not my question. My question is why are those witness statements that are not grand jury testimony that if they were under a protective order are no longer under a protective order? Why are they not being released? How are they not under protective? Why are you not going to the court like you did for the grand jury testimony to unseal those records? The DOJ did go to the court. No, not on those records. Why aren't you going? You just went on grand jury. Time of the gentleman is expired. The You are hiding the Epstein files, Mr. Time of the Gentleman is expired. You are part of the cover up. Can I respond? You sure can. Any allegations that I'm a part of a cover up to protect child sexual trafficking and victims of human trafficking and sexual crimes is patently and categorically false in the work of my So I hope you will talk to them when they have requested to speak with you because the victims have you are not responding to them.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett Obliterates Patel, Jordan Scrambles to Shield Him Roland S. Martin Sep 17, 2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered
Rep. Jasmine Crockett unleashed a blistering attack on FBI Director Patel, declaring him the least qualified in the bureau’s history. She dismantled his record point by point, highlighting failures to address white supremacist threats, domestic terrorism targeting HBCUs, and the redirection of FBI resources away from core responsibilities. Patel sat silent as Crockett leveled her charges, only responding later after Rep. Jim Jordan rushed to defend him. The exchange exposed both Patel’s weakness and Jordan’s complicity.
Transcript
Man, oh man, there has been so much today and I truly don't know where to start. Um, so I'm just going to make sure that we start off with a few facts. So, a couple of facts that we need to make clear for everyone is that number one, Director Christopher Ray, when he was appointed to be the head of the FBI, was appointed by Donald Trump. Now, I will agree that I definitely take issue with a number of decisions that Donald Trump makes, especially when it comes to the people that he decides to appoint to very important positions, including this one, because I did have to make sure that I wasn't going crazy. But when I say that you are the least qualified FBI director in the history of the FBI, that is real because you are the only one that never even served with the FBI prior to joining. Yet we are supposed to believe that you are the greatest thing since sliced bread. I didn't ask you a question. Now what I want to go through is to talk about why you are a failure and why honestly we just need to tell you bye-bye. I know that you got a little upset and you put on your show for your boss because it seems like you're trying to save your job uh when it came to talking to Senator Booker yesterday. But let's go through some of your failures. So before you were even confirmed, and I think one of my colleagues, my colleague from Georgia pointed out that you were already targeting career officials so that you could direct illegal firings. Mind you, um these cases that you were so upset about, which are the ones tied to Trump, um the cases came through his handpicked FBI director. Um, and frankly, when people sit around and say things like, "Oh, you know, we're happy because now we feel safe." I don't know who feels safe in this country except for the white supremacist because I specifically, as a black woman, definitely don't feel safe. And frankly, my colleagues have been real nice to you today, and I applaud them, but I don't have the same demeanor. uh because I know that multiple colleagues on this side of the aisle have faced death threats. In fact, somebody tried to kill one of my colleagues and frankly I don't know if this FBI or under your leadership if those people would have been caught. I don't have any confidence in you. And if we start talking about the reasons that I lack confidence, we could start with you not just wanting to acknowledge some simple facts. simple facts like the vast majority of the threats are coming from rightwing extremism. And I know my colleagues have tried to stress this, but I decided that I would maybe do it in a different way. Number one, I have a couple of UC's. Kim Buck, one of multiple Republic Republicans receiving death threats for voting against Jim Jordan as House Speaker. Without objection. Another one, Republican lawmaker says she received death threats after voting against Jim Jordan in speaker's race. without objection. In addition, uh there was another one from another colleague who now is leaving Congress because they said that they were calling his wife anonymously and threatening her life to the extent that she ended up sleeping with a firearm. Without objection. Okay, so here's the deal. How are we supposed to have confidence when you're sitting up here telling the Senate yesterday that it will take you 14 years before you can get the FBI fully staffed to do their jobs? You're also now redirecting resources so that they can go and play ICE agents on the streets. You're getting rid of your most qualified people. And even when it came down to somebody that you considered to be a friend, you were posted up having some fancy dinner to the extent that you posted not only once erroneously, you posted twice erroneously as it relates to catching somebody and then you want to go and say, "Let me take a victory lap." Because honestly, if it wasn't for parents deciding that they were going to turn in their child, it seems like y'all wouldn't have got there. even though he con he literally confessed online. So, I'm I'm confused about what it is that the FBI is doing except for trying to put on a show for the Apprentice or whatever you want to call him. The day after all of this took place, there was domestic terrorism that was taking place at H.B.CU. They were targeted. Yet, I didn't hear anything from the FBI about what was going on. And again, black people kept saying, "How did we end up in this?" Because the numbers are so very clear that white supremacy is a problem. And honestly, I've not heard anything out of you today that makes me believe that you're going to do anything about the white supremacy problem. the one that is leading to children being killed, children being shot, as well as members of their community as they're working, as they're worshiping in their churches. The time of the gentle ladies expired. If the gentleman would like to respond to any of that. Well, I mean, I'll respond. Cash Patel, as I said when I introduced him, public defender, former prosecutor, top staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, deputy director of national intelligence with the National Security Council, chief of staff at the Department of Defense, and FBI director. I think that's pretty good resume for the guy who's now the running the top law enforcement agency in our country, and we've seen all the stats that he's given to the committee on how much better they're doing at getting the bad guys than the previous guy was doing. With that, I recognize a gentleman from South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Director Patel, um, I think you're witnessing some, uh, auditions, uh, clickbait auditions for the Academy Award, uh, for my Democratic colleagues. We'll see how they fare, uh, as they're on MSNBC later on today. Uh, but do you care, before I launch into my line of questioning, to respond, uh, to Miss Crockett from Texas on that very elaborate uh, and theatric um, display? Here's what I've learned in my government service. I don't give a damn what they say about me as long as I'm succeeding in the mission. We're succeeding in the mission because the men and women of the FBI have never been empowered to do more work and to hit the streets harder than by President Trump's authorities and resources he's given us. And so all I care about is that we are capturing more child predators than ever before, taking more drugs off the streets than ever before, that we are capturing murderers at a a significantly historic rate, and we're delivering this country the lowest murder rate in recorded history. That are facts that you cannot dispute, but you can come at me all you want. I don't care. Thank Thank you, director, for that. Hello, I'm Isaac Hayes III, founder and CEO fan base, and I'm here with a very important message. We are at a turning point in the black community where we must have equity in the apps we use that scale to billions of dollars. But this time, we own the infrastructure, we own the culture, and we shape the future. And Fanbase is the future. Fanbase combines the free functionality of Instagram, Tik Tok, and YouTube into an all-in-one platform built for the evolution of social media and monetization. With over 1.4 million users, that's real proof that we are shifting the conversation of tech ownership and equity for creators. So, right now, I want you to go to start.com/fanbase and invest today. The minimum to invest is $399. that gets you 60 shares of stock and fan base at 665 a share. This marks a turning point in black ownership of social media. If we don't take this opportunity to own social media right now, we will always be customers to our own creations and that can't go on. So once again, go to start.com/fanbase and invest today. We must own the platforms where our voices live, our stories matter, and where our culture drives the world. Thank you. [Music]
*****************************************
Kash Patel Gets DESTROYED by Legal AF Video at House Hearing Legal AF Sep 17, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok
FBI Director Patel was just expertly cross examined into perjuring himself by Rep Jamie Raskin, who had him lie to Congress that he can't release the Epstein files because of non-existent court orders. And Legal AF and its video interviews made it into the Hearing Room on the big screen , as Rep. Lieu used Court of History's interview of journalist Michael Wolff to rip Patel apart about the Epstein files and to ask "where are the photos" of the victims that Michael said he saw when he was in Epstein's apartment for interviews. Popok ties it all together on his hot take.
Transcript
Did Kash Patel, the belleaguered FBI director, just lie to Congress under oath committing a crime because he just told Congress, including Ted Lou and others who are cross-examining him in the House Judiciary Committee segment of Oversight over Cash Patel, he just said he can't release the Epstein files. The Epstein files he claimed yesterday to the Senate that he had not reviewed. He can't release the Epstein files because he's under court order not to do it. There are court orders not to do it and I won't violate a court order by releasing the Epstein files. That's a lie. There are no court orders that prevent the release of the Epstein files. Quite the opposite. There are at least two federal judges in New York uh Judge Burman and Judge Angeler who have ordered effectively ordered that um the while the grand jury transcripts can't be released by them that the public should look naturally to the Trump administration to release the files. files that Bill Barr, the former attorney general for Donald Trump, said in closed door testimony, "Of course, Pam Bondi could release." Now, Cash Patel is lying that the that he can't release them because of some sort of magical thinking court orders that don't exist. I cover it all right here, including, I guess, to celebrate a a a weird gift that came from the cosmos to celebrate our legal AF one-year anniversary or one-year birthday today. Today, a legal AF video, an interview with Michael Wolf that was conducted by our Court of History resident historians Cindy Blumenthal and Shawn Menz ended up on the big screen because Representative Ted Lou used Michael Wolf's clip on Legal AF to cross-examine Cash Patel about what was or was not obtained by the FBI in a search warrant. Why weren't the naked photos of girls that Michael Wolf saw that were in the safe, why weren't they provided to the American people? And he used as a demonstrative a giant video of our Legal AF interview, the one conducted by Sydney and Sean. Oh, love every part of this. I'm Michael Pop. You're on Legal AF. Take a minute, hit the free subscribe button. Let's get into crack the knuckles and get into Cash Patel. Belleagered and battled Cash Patel. he of his own self-inflicted wounds. When you hollow out, turns out if you hollow out the FBI, you fire all of its leadership, you file the rank, you file, you fire the file, you spread them all over the country, you're not prepared for the next terrorist attack or the next mass shooting or the next shooting of of one of your own. And and while he's answering for all of that and leaving America less secure, what is he doing? He's covering up for Donald Trump and the Epstein files. Let's get the timeline right. Cash Patel comes in. He's a right-wing MAGA podcaster who believes in all the conspiracies about Epstein. He gets into office. MAGA world and all goes crazy. Qanon world goes crazy. They've got a right-wing podcast known as the FBI. Yay. They're going to get to the bottom of all the conspiracy theories and and what happens? Cash Patel announces in February in a letter, we're gonna turn we're gonna not we're we're not going to let any turn any turn any stone go unturned. We're not going to allow any we're going to we're going to produce every scrap of documents about Jeffrey Epstein. Hooray, said the conspiracy crowd and others now. And that was in February. We're now in uh September and it hasn't been produced really at all. And we know why. But we also know from reporting that in March, right after they made that announcement, Pam Bondi ordered the FBI, which is under her direction, and and Cash Patel to put, you know, spare no expense, work double shifts, morning, noon, and night, review every scrap of paper about Jeffrey Epstein. And they did, including taking out markers and doing redaction. Then by May, within two months after that, she's briefing Donald Trump about what's in the Epstein files. We know that it's never been refuted. That's the reporting. So by May at least, everybody DOJ and FBI should know it's in the Epstein files. And yet when he takes to the Senate yesterday, Cash Patel, he's asked a softball question by Senator Kennedy. I I assume you've reviewed all of the I sound like uh Fogghorn Legghorn. Um I I assume you've reviewed all of the Epstein files. Well, I haven't reviewed all of them. Let's play the clip. 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. So, he comes to Congress without reviewing the Epstein files. That's either professional negligence or that's another lie under oath, which again, lying to Congress is a crime. Let me remind you, FBI Director Patel. So, he lies about that. Then in not knowing what's inside of the Epstein files, because he says he hasn't reviewed them, he's reviewed them enough to know that they don't implicate anybody but Jeffrey Epstein. Well, how do you know that if you haven't reviewed the files? Here's that clip. 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 traffked 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, and that brings us to today. Now he goes, you already saw the clips I did a video. You can watch it here on legal af how how he got grilled within an inch of his life from senators Booker and Clolobashar and Blumenthal and Schiff got into a shouting match with all of them. Now he goes today to the house. No, he fares no better. And Ted Lou is ready for him. Right. The staffers obviously thought it would be a good idea to lead into the cross-examine of Cash Patel by using a legal AF interview video of Michael Wolf, the journalist. Play the clip. Dr. Patel for being here today. The FBI searched Jeffrey Epste's Manhattan residence. Correct. I believe that happened in 2018. I think there was two locations, sir. It's 2019. And in that residence, the FBI found a safe. Correct. I don't have the catalog of evidence in front of me. In that residence, the FBI found a safe. Correct. I'll accept your representation. Okay. And in that safe, the FBI found topless and lewd photographs of girls. Correct. Again, sir, I'll accept your representation. I don't know. Thank you. It was um all over the media at the time. There's a New York Times article that says Jeffrey Epstein is indicted on sex charges as discovery of nude photos is disclosed dated July 8th, 2019. In the Times reports, a trove of LWD photographs of girls was discovered in a safe inside finance year Jeffrey Epste's Manhattan mansion. Author Michael Wolf has conducted numerous interviews of Jeffrey Epstein. I'm going to play for you a video clip of what Michael Wolf said Epstein told him was in the safe and what he showed the author was in this safe. So, let's please play that clip now. elected. Um I and I was sitting talking to Epstein and he said, "Wait a minute. I got to show you something." Um and he went into his safe and he came out with with um with with photographs. They were they were polaroids, I I think. And um and he kind of kind of they were he kind of spread them out like playing cards. And it was Trump. I mean, I think there were a dozen of them. and and it was Trump with girls of an uncertain age at Epstein's Palm Beach house where all all of the things that he would ultimately be accused of took place. And I remember very vividly three of them. There are two in which Trump is uh the girls topless girls are sitting on Trump's lap and then a third in which he has a a a stain on the front of his pants and the girls are kind of kind of pointing at it sort of bent over laughing. So director Patel I'm going to ask you a very broad and general question. As you know Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were friends. There are, of course, photos showing Donald Trump together with Epstein. Correct. I don't have the entirety of the photographs, but I think they've been photographed in public together. All right. Are there any photos showing Donald Trump with girls of an uncertain age? No. How do you know that? Because that information would have been brought to light by multiple administrations and FBI investigators over the course of the last 20 years. Well, you know what? That's just not true because no one knew about the creepy birthday message that Donald Trump wrote to Jeffrey Epstein until the Wall Street Journal disclosed it and then all of a sudden the Epstein estate provides it to Congress. Certainly, you weren't there at the search. You don't know what Epste may or may not have done with those photographs even prior to the search. Maybe someone has it. Maybe the Epstein estate has it. You raise a great point. So, so I'm going to ask you, have you um asked to talk to Michael Wolf? You rais a great point. I haven't personally asked to talk to my FBI as the FBI I'll get back to you if the FBI has ever about a 100 hours of testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. Would would it be good for the FBI to interview Michael Wolf? I'm not saying they haven't. I just don't know. Has FBI subpoenaed the tapes that Michael Wolf has conducted of Jeffrey Epstein? I don't know. All right. So, if you could provide us an answer, that would be terrific. We made the big time on our one-y year birthday, everybody. Literally today, September 17th, last year we formed the Legal AF YouTube channel and now we're up at Congress on a big screen. Sometimes you report on the news, sometimes you make the news, sometimes you're in the news. All came together today. Today with Ted Lou get in that interview and yes, there was there where we're popping champagne cork, so to speak, over that happening. Yeah. And and it and I was talking to Cindy Blumenthal. I'm going to bring him on later today, maybe with Michael Wolf to talk about this. He said basically it's all the it's all a testament to the audience. We don't build the audience. We don't have legal AF the channel. Then then I don't I'm not able to bring on Sydney Blumenthal. Sydney Blumenthal is not able to bring on Michael Wolf because there's no channel to be brought on. This is like it's a Wonderful Life. There's no channel to be brought on for Michael to testify about and to give his interview to use against Cash Patel. There we are. Merry Christmas everybody. I'm just so glad that you are here with us because without you, seriously, there's nothing. It's me, you know, talking into a phony microphone every day. Is Cash Patel going to survive this? He's already lied about the court orders. He's already lied about the Epstein files. He can't be trusted. He He's effectively lied to Congress, which is which is itself a crime. He bungled the Charlie Kirk manhunt. Wasn't a manhunt. It was a mom hunt. the mother brought the guy in, the suspect. And nobody believes that if the FBI left to its own devices, they'd be able to conduct that manhunt and capture the person if that person didn't want to be captured. No way. We're not safe today. We're not safer today than we were 11 months ago because Donald Trump's in office surrounded by his keystone cops of Cash Mattel and Christine and Tulsi Gabbard and uh Pete Hexath and Pam Bondi. Are you serious? I joked recently that if you were putting together a study group in college, you wouldn't have any of these people in your study group, would you? Let alone on the hands of power on the levers of power. So, we'll continue to hold them accountable. And sometimes I'll be able to report that legal AF showed up in the news, which is a again a compliment and a testament to each and every one of you. So, until my next report, take a minute, be here now, be with our community now more than ever. We need you. Hit the free subscribe button, slide over to Legal AF Substack and do the exact same thing and consider becoming a paid member as well. So until my next report, I'm a very happy Michael Pop. I'm Michael Popac, and I got some big news for our audience. Most of you know me as the co-founder of Midas Touches Legal AF and the Legal AF YouTube channel or as a 35-year national trial lawyer. Now building on what we started together on Legal AF, I've launched a new law firm, the Popo Firm. Dedicated to obtaining justice through compassionate and zealous legal representation. At the Pope Firm, we are focused on obtaining justice for those who have been injured or damaged by a lifealtering event by securing the highest dollar recoveries. I've been tirelessly fighting for justice for the last 35 years. So, my own law firm, organically building on my legal AF work, just feels right. And I've handpicked a team of top tier trial fighters and settlement experts throughout all 50 states known as Big Auto injury attorneys who have the knowhow to beat heartless insurance companies, corporations, government entities, and their attorneys. Big Autos attorneys working with my firm are rock stars in their respective states and collectively responsible for billions of dollars in recoveries. So, if you or a loved one have been on the wrong side of a catastrophic auto, motor vehicle, ride share, or truck accident, suffered a personal injury, or been the victim of medical malpractice, employment harassment or discrimination, or suffered a violation of your civil and constitutional rights, then contact the Pope Firm today at 1877 pop af or by visiting my website at http://www.thepopfirm.com and fill out a free case evaluation form. And if we determine that you have a case and you sign with us, we don't get paid unless you do. The Pope firm fighting for your justice every step of the way.
****************************
Thomas Massie Asks FBI Director Kash Patel Point Blank If He's Seen Any CIA Files On Jeffrey Epstein Forbes Breking News Sep 17, 2025
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) questioned FBI Director Kash Patel about the Epstein files.
Transcript
consent request. Gentleman's recognized. So, uh, I've got four documents I'd like to introduce into the record. The first one is Jeffrey Epstein's six story played out for years in plain sight. And Aosta is quoted in here saying, "I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone." The second document is um entitled, "What Epstein's bodyguard warned about his CIA connections." The third document is from Fox Digital. It's titled Epstein's private calendar reveals planned meetings with Obama admin official CIA chief. And the last document is Wall Street Journal article that highlights Ahood Barack's 36 meetings with Jeffrey Epstein. He was the former prime minister of Israel and head of military intelligence for Israel. without it may have held that title when he met Epstein and then yes without objection if the gentleman will hold for a second. The gentleman from Maryland's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one UC request. This is Judge Engeler's decision from August and US versus Epstein stating the government's 100,000 pages of Epstein files dwarfs the 70 odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials. Uh without objection, gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Director Patel, I watched some of your Senate hearing yesterday when Senator Kennedy asked you, you've seen most of the files, who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these women to besides himself? You replied, according to the transcript, there is no credible information that he trafficked them to anyone else. You also said somewhere in the hearing and here today that the problem is that the case files are constrained by limited search warrants from 2006 to 2007 and that the nonprosecution agreement hamstrung future investigations. Those constraints only apply to Southern District of Florida. They do not apply to Southern District of New York, the location of the 2019 sex trafficking indictment, which produced many things, including a series of FD302 documents. According to victims who cooperated with the FBI in that investigation, these documents in FBI possession, your possession, detail at least 20 men, including Mr. Jess Staley, CEO of Barklay's Bank, who Jeffrey Epstein traffked victims to. Victims including minors such as Virginia Roberts Euprey. May she rest in peace. That list also includes at least 19 other individuals. One Hollywood producer worth a few hundred million dollars. One royal prince, one high-profile individual in the music industry, one very prominent banker, one high-profile government official, one high-profile former politician, one owner of a car company in Italy, one rock star, one magician, at least six billionaires, including a billionaire from Canada. We know these people exist in the FBI files, the files that you control. I don't know exactly who they are, but the FBI does. Have you launched any investigations into any of these people? And have you seen these 302 documents? Sir, I have asked my FBI agents to review the entirety of the Epstein files and bring forth any credible information, and we're working with Congress not only to divulge that information and produce it to you, but any investigations that arise from any credible investigation will be brought. there have been no new materials brought to me launching a new um indictment. So is is is the loophole here or is it your assertion that these uh victims aren't credible that the 302s maybe didn't produce credible statements that rise to a probable cause? It's not my assertion, sir. It's the assertion of um at two different United States Attorney's offices from three separate administrations who investigated those same materials in lifetime. Are the 302 documents in the FBI's possession? They reviewed all that. Yes, sir. And and so have you reviewed those 302 documents that where the victims name the people who victimized them? If I personally know, but the FBI has. So, how can you sit here and and in front of the Senate and say there are no names? I said all I named one today. I I said we are not in the we are not in the practice at the Department of Justice and FBI of releasing victim's names. That is not what we do. We are also not in the habit of releasing incredible information. That's not what we do. But multiple authorities have looked at the entirety of what we have. I got to move on here. Were you present when the AG uh had the White House event when she released the binders to the social media influencers? I was. Yes. So, if you're willing to meet with social media influencers who stood to benefit from the sensational and sad stories of these victims, will you meet with the victims as well? The FBI will meet with anyone who has no information. Will you personally meet with them? The FBI and the professionals who are handling the cases will. Were you instructed that it was important to release the documents to the oversight committee on the day of uh my introduction of the discharge petition to release these files? I don't know what day that was. So, no. Well, they were released that day and there were victims names who weren't redacted because it was they were in such a rush and the victims are not happy about that. Um, have you investigated any of the CIA connections? Have you seen the CIA file on Jeffrey Epstein? And if you wanted to see it, would they show it to you? Well, I can speak for the FBI, and that's presuming there's a CIA case file, and I've reviewed everything that the inter agency, not I, the FBI, that was provided to us. Would you would you be willing to look at the CIA file on Jeffrey Epstein? If there is such a file, and if it has not already been been turned over to the FBI, the FBI will look at any new investigative leads. Um, have you made any progress on the pipe bomb investigation January 6th? And have you made any progress on the motive of the Las Vegas shooter? Uh, on the as to the first, it's an ongoing investigation and we have made progress. As to the second, sir, I'll have to get back to you. All right. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Chairman of a
Rep. Jasmine Crockett: Trump Pardoned Rapists & Pedophiles — And Republicans Call It Law & Order Rep. Jasmine Crockett Sep 18, 2025 #JasmineCrockett #Oversight #RuleOfLaw
In Oversight, Rep. Jasmine Crockett opens with a lightning round on what’s lawful vs. lawless—ignoring court orders, impounding congressionally-directed funds, fake “emergencies,” sending troops without an invite, revoking birthright citizenship, violating due process, racial gerrymanders, and yes…trying to censor Jimmy Kimmel. “Free Jimmy Kimmel,” she says—because the First Amendment isn’t optional.Then Crockett laid out the most damning truth of all: Trump pardoned rapists, child predators, and violent insurrectionists who attacked our Capitol. Men convicted of forcible rape, child pornography, domestic violence, and assaults on police officers are now walking free — not because of justice, but because of Trump.
While Republicans push sham crime bills and try to strip second chances from young people, Crockett reminded them that the real threat to law and order sits at the top: a twice-impeached, 34-count convicted felon who turned the U.S. government into a safe haven for predators and criminals.
This wasn’t just about calling out hypocrisy. It was about putting on record what’s really happening: corruption, lawlessness, and a Republican Party that would rather protect the powerful than protect the people.
Transcript
A lot to cover. So, I'm starting with the AG. I want you to tell me whether or not it's lawful or lawless. Ignoring court orders.
That's lawless.
Impounding congressional funds
violates the law.
Invoking emergency powers when there is no emergency.
Unlawful.
Sending troops without an invite.
Violates the law.
Covering for pedophiles. I just threw that one in there. Okay, I'll move to the next one. What about revoking birthright citizenship?
Violates the 14th amendment of the constitution.
How about violating due process?
Violates the fifth and 14th amendment of the constitution.
How about what we see happening with redistricting that would in some way minimize if not delete the voices of people of color as they are going through and illegally going through this process. Is there a constitutional amendment that you can think of that is associated with that?
Probably many, but it is unlawful and unconstitutional and unamerican.
Thank you. As well as can you tell me if it is lawful or lawless to violate free speech?
That's lawless.
Okay, sounds about, right cuz you know, we had to have a conversation about Jimmy Kimmel. So, I'm going to say free Jimmy Kimmel for sure. And hopefully we will deal with the FCC chairman.
But the reason that I wanted to go through that long list, and that was actually not even the half of it, is because since this administration has come in on January 20th, they have engaged in some form of every single thing that I said on that list, even the part about covering for pedophiles. So my question is, why are we sitting here today? Number one, they already passed their bootleg laws. And it's clear that even the bill author is not well informed about what his bill does because as has already been stated, at the at the age of 18, you are an adult. So this idea that somehow 21 year olds were now somehow juveniles under DC law, is that accurate or inaccurate?
It was inaccurate. Misunderstood the way the law works.
Correct. could not understand how to read the law, and decided that they were going to rewrite the law and mess up the law. And to be clear, we were talking about judges being able to have enough discretion to decide whether or not they were going to give someone an opportunity maybe to clean their record, such as the bill author was given that opportunity under Florida law because his second felony was picked up when he was 21 to be clear. So he was older than 18. And under this law, if you were under what? 25. So 24 or under, then the judges had discretion.
Correct. But only in certain kinds of cases, not the most serious cases. And in fact, that discretion was, as we know, exercised very rarely. And it would have been an opportunity had the Congress wanted to talk with the folks who are involved in applying that law and seeing how it works to understand that this is not a law that's out of sync with other states and it's working.
Thank you so much. And the reason that it matters is because now the gentleman from Florida is trying to become a governor. And chances are maybe DC once they get statehood could have had a future governor that had a second chance. But since they don't want other people to have chances that they've been given, they want to just pretend like they are bigger and better and better than.
So I will move on because I am frustrated that we are having this hearing when we know that this administration can't take care of their own business. As we know, they recently illegally bombed yet another Venezuelan boat and we may be headed for a war. We know that this particular president has decided that he wants to shake down people as relates to the First Amendment because he has filed not one lawsuit, not two lawsuits, but he has filed numerous lawsuits. He filed a lawsuit against the New York Times. He filed one against the Wall Street Journal, against CBS, against ABC, against the Des Moines Register. He is doing all of this because he wants to quash any speech that is not appreciative or allowing him, which is pretty much anything that's factual.
So, let's talk a few facts about these January 6 felons that should still be incarcerated because they went through the process. But because they were doing things on his behalf, of course, he wanted to let them go. So they released more than a thousand people who participated in the insurrection on this government, many of whom who had previous criminal records, like Mr. Theodore Mindenorf, who was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, or Mr. Peter Schwarz, who had 38 prior convictions, including one where he beat his wife by repeatedly punching and biting her. Trump also pardoned Mr. David Daniel, who was convicted of production and possession of child pornography. Trump also pardoned Mr. Daniel Ball, who quote threw an explosive device that detonated upon at least 25 officers during the capital riot. He also had a record for quote domestic violence by strangulation. I'm not done. Trump also pardoned Mr. Andrew Taki, who sent nudes to an undercover law enforcement officer who was posing as a 15-year-old girl. Mr. Casey Hopkins also received a pardon from Trump. And Mr. Hopkins was convicted of forcible rape. According to court records, he quote have forcible intercourse with the victim, choked her to the point of impairing her vision, banged her head into a wall, and urinated into the victim's mouth as he humiliated her.
These are the people that he decided to release in the streets of DC. So, if anybody does need to clean up DC, I would agree it is this man [Trump], because he is the one that is causing half the crime that we have. Not only is he participating in the crime, but we know that he instigated the insurrection.
And if I did say that I had one issue with the Biden Harris administration, it is the fact that they did not move forward and make sure that this man was put where he should have been put, because the last time I checked as a criminal defense attorney, and Mr. Attorney General, you may have a different experience. But I never had a defendant that had 34 convictions for felonies and did not spend one day in jail. Never in my life. And the last time I checked, the party of law and order is the only one that decided that they would be out of order, and decided to nominate someone who was not only indicted, but was actually convicted of multiple felonies. That has never happened in this country. And it is a shame that we are dealing with it now. And now he wants to tell y'all how to do your jobs. Okay.
Trump Returns from U.K. Visit and the White House Cracks Down on Free Speech: A Closer Look Late Night with Seth Meyers Sep 18, 2025 A Closer Look - Late Night with Seth Meyers
Seth takes a closer look at Trump's lavish state visit to the U.K. and his administration's attempts to silence critics and crack down on free speech.
Transcript
-Donald Trump is on his way back from a trip to the United Kingdom, where he was met with protests while back here at home, his administration is pursuing a crackdown on free speech. And completely unrelated -- I just want to say, before we get started here, that I've always admired and respected Mr. Trump. [ Laughter ] I've always believed he was -- no, no, no -- a visionary, an innovator, a great president, an even better golfer. And if you've ever seen me say anything negative about him, that's just AI. I'm told -- I have been told there are some clips of me on the internet making jokes about him from a few years back. Those are obviously deepfakes. I mean, come on, does that look like me? That's clearly teen Sheldon. [ Laughter ] Anyway, for more on this, it's time for "A Closer Look." ♪♪ Trump has been to the UK many times, with varying degrees of success. In his first term, he wore a Winston Churchill style hat that made him look like he was starring in a knockoff production of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" down at the old folks' home. And then there was the time he committed a royal faux pas by wandering in front of the Queen while inspecting the troops. And for anyone complaining about that, you try making the Queen disappear. Have a little respect for Donald Copperfield. Although this is weird -- the Queen was only gone for a few seconds, but she would later swear it had been days. [ British accent ] It was so dark and I was so hungry. [ Laughter ] That was Trump's first term, but the trips in his second term have also been a mixed bag. When he visited the Middle East, those governments tripped over themselves to please him. -President Trump touching down in Saudi Arabia, escorted by military jets. -I don't think I've ever seen The Beast with a horse escort. -Saudi Arabia had a McDonald's mobile truck. Look at that thing. -That's what I call hospitality. -I'm shocked he came back to America. They combined his two favorite things -- McDonald's and trucks. If they had put a rack on the back for golf clubs, he would definitely still be there. I mean, it's very hard -- It's very hard, you guys, to compete with that because, you know, the closest thing -- the closest thing we have to a McDonald's mobile truck in the States is, of course, the Arby's windowless white van. The point is, the UK had to up the ante and they pulled out all the stops. There was a military flyover, a lavish state dinner, a ride in a gilded carriage, a parade of horses, including one who gave Trump the ultimate honor of taking a dump right in front of him. Don't laugh though, don't laugh, don't laugh. That is actually the highest honor you can get from a royal horse. Which is why they gave Trump a golden take-home box to carry his gift in. [ Trump voice ] I have something inside here that was given to me by a horse. Big horse, strong horse. He came -- he came up to me, tears pouring from his eyes down onto his giant nostrils, and he said to me -- he said to me, "Mr. Trump, sir." [ Fart noise ] And that's today's unnecessary fart noise. -[ Fart noise ] -Unnecessary fart noise! -[ Air horn blares ] -And you know what? -And you know what? Can we get a little one just for good measure? -[ Fart noise ] -Okay, so... [ Laughter ] We gotta try to have fun somehow, all right? Now, Trump was obviously impressed by all the pomp and circumstance, but he was impressed most of all by the venue. -King Charles is pumping up the royal pomp and circumstance this week for President Trump's second state visit to the UK. Instead of Buckingham Palace, the president will chopper into Windsor Palace and get a carriage procession. -This was at Windsor. They've never used Windsor Castle for this before. They used Buckingham Palace and I don't want to say one's better than the other, but they say Windsor Castle is the ultimate. -Who -- who is the "they" that calls Windsor Castle the ultimate? Because it certainly doesn't sound like how a posh British person talks. I mean, maybe someone from a Guy Ritchie movie. [ Cockney accent ] All right, we're gonna rob Windsor Castle because it's the [Bleep] ultimate, innit? [Bleep] ultimate castle, mate. [ Laughter ] [ Normal voice ] So Trump was excited about the five-star accommodations, and surely, surely, nothing could ruin the experience. -Protesters here overnight projecting a photo of President Trump alongside convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on the walls of Windsor. -No! Not Windsor Castle! Windsor Castle is the ultimate! I think it's safe to say Trump was clearly feeling good about the special US-UK relationship. -The word special does not begin to do it justice. We're joined by history and fate and by love and language, the language born on these isles and perfected in the pages of Shakespeare and Dickens and Tolkien and Lewis, Orwell and Kipling. Incredible people. Unbelievable people like we have rarely seen before. Probably won't see again. -[ Trump voice ] Shakespeare, Dickens, Orwell -- all the people who tried to warn us. [ Laughter ] We won't see them again. [ Normal voice ] Can I just say how much -- how happy I would have been had a heckler yelled out, "Name your favorite Kipling!" I'd be so shocked if Trump had an answer. [ Trump voice ] It's got to be "Jungle Book." We love -- we love Mowgli, we love Baloo. We love the bare necessities. We love them because they're simple. [ Laughter ] They help us forget about our worries and our strife. Nobody likes the strife. [ Normal voice ] The point is, in spite of the protests and awkward moments, everybody seemed to get along. Which is notable because not long ago, it looked like things might be getting a little rocky between the US and the UK, particularly over the issue of free speech. -Vice president JD Vance getting into a dispute with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer yesterday over free speech during Starmer's visit to DC. -There have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British -- Of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them, but also affect American technology companies and by extension, American citizens. -We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time. -[ British accent ] We've had free speech for a very long time, and it will last for a very long time, specifically on the side of Windsor Castle, which, as you know... is the ultimate. [ Laughter ] [ Normal voice ] But look, say what you will about the Trump administration. The issue of free speech is clearly very important to them. -In America, we believe in free speech and we're bringing it back starting today. I stopped government censorship and we brought back free speech in America. I will restore free speech. I will restore free speech. I banned government censorship from your voices and brought back free speech in America. We have free speech. We didn't have free speech. We do have it now, actually. And I have stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It's back. -And look, I think all of us can agree free speech is a good thing. No, not now, not today. Because in order for a democracy to thrive -- I said I don't want to do it today. [ Laughter ] Stop waving your arms around. I don't want to do it. I'm sorry. I'm being told there's a follow-up montage. And historically, when we play a follow up montage, it undercuts everything in the first montage. And, you know, I'd just really like the first montage about free speech to be like, true today, you know? [ Laughter ] You promise? You promise the second montage isn't going to undercut the first montage? Okay. -We are continuing to follow the breaking news tonight. ABC pulling Jimmy Kimmel's show off the air after facing pressure from Donald Trump's FCC. -The president declared victory, basically, tonight, writing on Truth Social that this is "great news for America." The ratings-challenged Jimmy Kimmel show is canceled. -Are you happy now with your second montage? I feel like a horse just took a dump at my feet. [ Fart noise ] [ Laughter ] Trump promised to end government censorship and bring back free speech, and he's doing the opposite. And it has experts worried that we're rapidly devolving into a repressive autocracy in the style of Russia or Hungary much faster than anyone could have predicted. -We're also getting new reports today the White House plans to target a variety of left-leaning groups and nonprofits in the coming weeks. All part of a larger and more dangerous effort underway. And it follows a playbook we have seen successfully run in recent years by authoritarian strongmen in places like Hungary and Turkey and Russia. In Hungary, for example, the country's oldest newspaper was suddenly shuttered after being bought by a businessman with links to far-right president Viktor Orbán. -And I've said we've gone from zero to Hungary faster than anybody ever could imagine. -And of course, zero to Hungary is also how Trump felt when he saw the McDonald's truck. You guys, here's an important thing to understand, and if it's the thing you take away tonight, I want that to be the case -- anytime the country of Hungary is in the news, it's a comedy writer's dream. [ Laughter ] They're so happy because they can use it to mean Hungary in the sense of both the geographical location and also wanting to eat food. The only thing they love more about it is a news story about Turkey. And if Hungary -- if Hungary and Turkey are ever in the same story, they run into my office like Scrooge on Christmas morning. [ Laughter ] In fact, the Trump administration's crackdown on free speech has been so shocking and so chilling that prominent voices from across society, from Hollywood to former presidents, have spoken out and promised to investigate. -Now we've got the Trump administration literally targeting individuals. You saw it with Stephen Colbert. Now you're seeing it with Kimmel. Anybody that's criticizing this administration -- they're using the power of government to intimidate companies to fire people. -As a country, we have to, in this moment, know that our democracy is on the line, and we've got to push back and ensure that we are doing the right thing and protecting this country, the freedom of speech and our institutions and our government. -Celebrities like Ben Stiller and Jean Smart were quick to defend Kimmel. Comedian Wanda Sykes, who was scheduled to appear as Kimmel's guest Wednesday, accused the Trump administration of ending free speech. -Former President Barack Obama is weighing in, blaming the Trump administration for threatening media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn't like, and urging media companies to stand up to Trump instead of capitulating. -This country is rapidly moving toward an authoritarian form of society. In authoritarian countries like Russia and others, Saudi Arabia, you do not have a media that is allowed to be critical of the government. -They're right, and I love it when Bernie and Obama agree, because they do it with such different styles. Obama's like, "This is a...violation of our...founding principles. And Bernie's, like, "Millionaires and billionaires are destroying democracy. Back in my day, presidents weren't censoring late-night comedy shows. They were going to all the late-night comedy shows. I remember when Nixon was on "Laugh-In." [ Laughter ] He said, 'Sock it to me. I was 45 years old.' Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be getting lunch at the Arby's van." [ Laughter ] And may I just say, it is a privilege and an honor to call Jimmy Kimmel my friend in the same way that it's a privilege and honor to do this show every night. I wake up every day, I count my blessings that I live in a country that at least purports to value freedom of speech. And we're going to keep doing our show the way we've always done it -- with enthusiasm and integrity. -[ Fart noise ] -And I'm -- [ Laughter ] We're going to have a conversation after the show. I'm very disappointed in you today. This is a pivotable -- pivotable [Laughs] -- this is a pivotal [Laughs] -- this is a pivotal and pivotable -- That's how big it is. This is a pivotable -- Oh, my God. [ Laughs ] This is a pivotal -- This is a big moment... [ Laughter ] ...in our democracy, and we must all stand up for the principles of free expression. There's a reason free speech is in the very First Amendment. It stands above all others. You might even say it's... -The ultimate. -This has been "A Closer Look." [ Audience cheering, applauding ]
We Are All Jimmy Kimmel | The Easy Way Or The Hard Way | Trump Urges NBC To Cancel Fallon And Mey… The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Sep 18, 2025 #Colbert #Comedy #Monologue
ABC yanked “Jimmy Kimmel Live” off the air following a threat from FCC chair Brendan Carr, and President Trump celebrated his administration’s success in blackmailing media companies in order to silence his critics.
Transcript
[Applause] Welcome one and all to the Late Show. I'm your host Steven Colbert. But but tonight we are all Jimmy Kimmel. I um I still have a show though, right? Okay, good. Yesterday, after threats from Trump's FCC chair, ABC yanked Kimmel off the air indefinitely. That is blatant censorship. And it always starts small. You know, remember like in week one of his presidency, Gulf of America. Call it Gulf of America. Sure seems harmless, but with an autocrat, you cannot give an inch. And if ABC thinks, if ABC thinks that this is going to satisfy the regime, they are woefully naive. And clearly they've never read the children's book If You Give a Mouse a Kimmel. And and and to Jimmy and to Jimmy, just let me say I stand with you and your staff 100%. And also, you couldn't let me enjoy this for like one week. Just just come on now. Just just like ours, Jimmy's monologue is about what everyone's talking about every day. And on Monday, everyone was talking about reactions to the horrifying assassination of Charlie Kirk. And Jimmy touched on it in a way that offended FCC chair and individually wrapped hard-boiled egg that they sell at the airport, Brendan Carr. Carr went on a podcast yesterday afternoon and described Jimmy's comments as the sickest conduct possible. Wow, those are strong words. I mean, Jimmy must have really been off the rails. I mean, completely out of control. Truly psychotic. Let's Let's see what he said. We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the fingerpointing, there was uh grieving. Is that the clip? really cuz that's just Jimmy Kimmel. I mean, given the FCC's response, I was expecting something more, you know, provocative. That's like hearing that Playboy has a racy new centerfold and finding out it's just Jimmy Kimmel. But Brendan Carr, he went even further, sending a clear signal to broadcasters what their next move should be and throwing in a little implied threat. I think that it's it's it's really sort of past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney and say, "Listen, we are going to preempt. We are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out." I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Classic good guy talk. Joanne, would you make me the happiest man in the world? Look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Okay. the uh chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, who has the power over ABC's broadcast licenses, sounds like he's telling them to punish Kimmel or else. It feels to me like shutting down this type of speech would represent a serious threat to our freedoms. And you know who else thinks that? Brendan Carr in 2020 when he tweeted, "From internet memes to late night comedians, political satire helps hold those in power accountable. Shutting down this type of political speech, especially at the urging of those targeted or threatened by its message, would represent a serious threat to our freedoms. Oh man, do not tell Brendan Carr that Brendan Carr said that or he's going to get Brendan Carr to cancel Brendan Carr. Danger. You can't you can't Brendan Carr's comments, they see they really sure seem like marching orders. And right after that podcast, there was an immediate reaction from NextStar, which is a local affiliate media group that owns 32 ABC stations and not, as I thought, how really drunk guys pronounce NASCAR. Next said it strongly objected to recent comments made by Mr. Kimmel and would preempt the series for the immediate future. Coincidentally, NextStar has a major merger coming up before the Trump administration. So, a company apparently capitulating to the whims of the president in order to ensure their merger goes through. Has that ever happened before? And what's that? What? I can't what? Oh, I'm being told not to answer that question. Uh, further coincidentally, Carr has even more leverage over the network because Disney, which owns ABC, also needs the Trump administration's green light for ESPN's deal to buy the NFL network. Yes, everything is about corporate relationships. It's it's hard to keep track, but remember ABC is owned by Disney, which also owns Pixar, which is trying to merge with Twizzlers Pull and Peel, who make the material that Loheed Martin uses for the O-rings for their Triton 2 missiles that the Defense Department commissions with the cash it got from its leverage buyout of Claire's. Okay, it's Anyway, shortly after Carr makes his statements about ABC, Kimmel gets yanked off the air. This decision came after senior executives at ABC, Disney, and affiliates convened emergency meetings during which multiple execs felt that Kimmel had not actually said anything over the line. But the threat of Trump administration retaliation loomed. As one source at ABC put it, they were pissing themselves all day. On the bright side, that proves Disney is number one in streaming. Thank you. Now, this this all this may seem bad, but Carr was quick to reassure everyone, posting, "While this may be an unprecedented decision, it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community values." Well, you know what my community values are, Buster? Freedom of speech or or as Alexander Hamilton called it, Hakuna Matata. People across the country are shocked by this blatant assault on the freedom of speech. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy posted this video of himself. Steven Cobear is gone. Jimmy Kimmel is gone. He told me I was gone. I thought I could go. Now, don't go far with this. Now, the administration claims this was not their decision and it's not about Donald Trump. You know who doesn't believe that? Donald Trump. Listen to the president justifying threatening broadcast licenses of people who don't like him. When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that's all they do. If you go back, I guess they haven't had a conservative on in years or something, somebody said. But when you go back and take a look, all they do is in trouble. They're licensed. They're not allowed to do that. Yes, they are. Since since since the beginning, since Steve Allen, these shows have always talked about the current president, and that happens to be you. That's why you haven't heard me do too many Chester A. Arthur jokes. and and I got a lot. The A stands for a whole lot of pubes on your face. So So no matter what they claim, this is not entirely about what Jimmy said on Monday, this was part of a plan. How do I know that? Two months ago, when the president was tastefully celebrating my cancellation, he posted Jimmy Kimmel is next to go. How would he have known? Either either Jimmy getting thrown off the air was his plan all along or he was the one who stole that almanac from Doc Brown's Delorean. God, it is so bizarre. It is so bizarre to see an American president weighing in so veheently on TV shows. It reminds me when Reagan said this, "Mr. Gorbachov, cancel the Golden Girls." This whole thing This whole thing is is the the latest and boldest action in a long campaign against media critics. Trump has personally sued ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the De Mo Register, and his bathroom scale. Plus, he defunded PBS and NPR and has already found his next target. Last night, he posted, "Jimmy Kimmel show is cancelled." That leaves Jimmy and Seth to total losers on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it. NBC president DJT. Good lord. Well, you you heard the man. I guess we're all going to end up working out our new podcast, Fired Force 5. We got a great show for you tonight. My guests are Jake Tapper and David. When we come back, we'll hear an opposing view from an old friend. Stick around. Heat. [Applause]
****************************
The Word: Shhhhhh!
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Sep 18, 2025 #Colbert #Comedy #TheColbertReport
Daddy’s home! Stephen Colbert has appointed Stephen Colbert, former host of “The Colbert Report,” as ombudsman to ensure that the final season of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” remains free from liberal bias.
Transcript
[Applause] Hey everybody, welcome back. Give it up for the band, folks. There you go. Hey everybody, have a seat. Thank you very much. Welcome back. Welcome back to the late show. We still on the air. Fantastic. Apparently, Brendan Carr has not seen tonight's episode yet. Ladies and gentlemen, we live in unsettling times with rising autocracy targeting America's most vulnerable talk show hosts. But there is a way for us folks on TV to keep ourselves safe. I assume I wouldn't know, but my network is trying to make sure they do not run a foul of Brendan Carr's FCC. As part of the settlement with Donald Trump this summer, CBS recently hired a conservative policy veteran to be their unbudsman who will keep tabs on CBS's unbudding. And apparently having a conservative overseeing your programming is a way to stay on the air. And I would love to be able to finish out the last season of my show. So just to be safe, the late show has appointed our own umbman. He is someone that I've known for years. He's a dear friend with strong conservative credentials. Please welcome my identical cousin and the former host of the Colbear Report, Steven Colbear. Thank you. Thank you my fellow Americans. Thank you so much. Hello nation. Daddy's home. Yep. So drop t and lay across my lap cuz I'm going to spank you with freedom until I can see the American flag reflected in your shiny swollen asses. Ladies and gentlemen, my friends, nation, I return to you tonight to rescue you from this free speech crisis. I'm going to scream the answer loud and proud. No holds barred with tonight's triumphant word. [Applause] Nation folk, America is facing perhaps its greatest crisis in 249 years. You see, people people are saying things that hurt Donald Trump's feelings. Now, usually, ladies and gentlemen, usually in the TV biz, if people are upset with you over something that you've said or done, the eyeballs and the advertising go somewhere else. That's called capitalism. But in this ABC case, the FCC had no choice but to slap down the invisible hand of the market. Now, you might think, you might think the Constitution coddlers out there argue that Americans are born with certain God-given rights like life and liberty and of course and of course the pursuit of happiness. But what about the pursuit of Donald Trump's happiness? And yes, it's true the words Donald Trump aren't in the Constitution. But ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I can say they are because I have freedom of speech. So, how just how do you balance your rights with your duty not to make the commanderin-chief fill his depends with tears? Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, my friends, it's shockingly simple here. Observe. Now, was that so hard? You can have your rights just as long as you don't use them. Of course, the Sally Sticklers out there may want to hear you talk on your talk show, but ladies and gentlemen, here's the thing. You can talk and still say nothing. The thing is, all you have to do is repeat whatever the approved message from the White House is today. But remember my friends, just remember anyone can be silent in the face of an autocrat. You have a responsibility to do more than just censor yourself. You need to turn in your friends. Write down write down what they say. Get them fired. Then a true patriot can take their job saying nothing on TV. And most importantly, don't ever complain. No matter what the president does, even if he sends the army to your hometown, just shut up and take it. Right. Speaker Mike Johnson, yield, man. Let the troops come into your into your city. Yes. Yield. That's my favorite. No. No. Yield is my favorite road sign. And sure. And sure, not using your rights out of fear might feel like not having them, but as George Washington said at MI, sometimes you have to destroy freedom to save it. So give up, America. Just give up and stop saying anything that might upset the president. And if you think that's a terrible idea, no, you don't. And that's the word. We'll be right back
Jon Stewart's Post-Kimmel Primer on Free Speech in the Glorious Trump Era | The Daily Show The Daily Show Sep 18, 2025 #DailyShow #JimmyKimmel #Trump
A humble, obedient Jon Stewart heaps praise upon America's Glorious Leader, Donald J. Trump, and provides an FCC-approved refresher on the rules of free speech in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel's suspension. Plus, the TDS News Team serenades the world's greatest, large-penised leader.
Transcript
[MOTIVATIONAL MUSIC] ANNOUNCER: From Comedy Central, it's the all new, government-approved Daily Show with your patriotically obedient host, Jon Stewart. [INSPIRATIONAL MUSIC] [WORDLESS SINGING] # # [CHEERING] Hello. Good evening. [CHEERING] My name is-- my name is Jon Stewart. And welcome to The Daily Show on-- I'm going to guess Monday. I don't know. [LAUGHTER] We have another fun, hilarious, administration-compliant show. [LAUGHTER] AUDIENCE: Aw. What are you doing? Shut up. [LAUGHTER] [BLEEP] blow this for us. [LAUGHTER] [CHEERING] So we're-- we're coming to you tonight from a real shithole, the crime-ridden cesspool that is New York City. It is a tremendous disaster, like no one's ever seen before. Someone's National Guard should invade this place. Am I right? Shut the [BLEEP] up. [LAUGHTER] If you felt a little off these past couple of days, it's probably because our great father has not been home. [LAUGHTER] For Father has been gracing England with his legendary warmth and radiance. [LAUGHTER] Gaze upon him with a gait even more majestic than that of the royal horses that prance before him. He wowed the English with charm, intelligence, and an undeniable sexual charisma that filled their air like a pheromone-packed London fog. [LAUGHTER] And as part of this historic trip, the perfectly tinted Trump-- [LAUGHTER] --dazzled his hosts at dinner with a demonstration of unmatched oratory skill. [LAUGHTER] He didn't have to look down once-- [LAUGHTER] --completely off book as he name-checked his favorite authors from the top of his head. [LAUGHTER] Trump employing restraint not to quote verbatim these great authors our president has devoured voraciously-- incredible people, indeed. [LAUGHTER] I'll tell you whose client list Trump's name is on-- Dewey Decimal's. [LAUGHTER] But of course, as great as those authors are, there can only be one most tremendous author in the English language. And I think we know that that author begins with a T and ends in key. [LAUGHTER] Oh, how fortune has smiled upon us, for that very scribe is also our dear leader. The whole room is enthralled. [LAUGHTER] That's resting interest face. [LAUGHTER] It was a most beautiful recitation, Mr. President. It brings me to tears, almost as much as your favorite poem about that man from Nantucket-- [LAUGHTER] --and the variety of things that man can do that rhyme with tucket. [LAUGHTER] Although, Mr. President, if I may humbly, I beg of you, take a small detour off this highway of adoration you have so richly earned for a bit of a comic repast, um, what the [BLEEP] is on this guy's head? [LAUGHTER] Hang all the mistletoe you want, Earl of Higgin Hoffenballum. [LAUGHTER] Our president's luscious lips shall never grace your forehead. [LAUGHTER] Or is that [BLEEP]-- is that some sort of second-rate Harry Potter scar shit? What's on his head? (IN BRITISH ACCENT) He's scarred with the mark of the fern. (IN REGULAR ACCENT) Leviacus Growatosis. [LAUGHTER] But the president, almost despicably humble, gave the royals a rare glimpse at his soft-spoken yet prideful side. [LAUGHTER] Nobody. [LAUGHTER] Certainly not this [BLEEP] guy. Am I right? [LAUGHTER] You got something to say to me, King Chuck? Don't make eye contact, bitch. I'm the alpha dog. [LAUGHTER] Trump knows, USA is the hottest we've ever been-- and not just because of climate change, which is a good thing. It's actually-- climate change is-- it's a good thing. [LAUGHTER] Cities should be part of the ocean-- [LAUGHTER] --if you think about it. Because obviously, what's more important than staying hydrated for cities? [LAUGHTER] Of course, this visit wasn't just an opportunity for President Trump to rub shoulders with lesser royals. He also met with political leaders, like the British prime minister, who had to be reminded that Trump has ended all the wars in the world, especially the one between Azerbaijan and Armenia. To think that we settled "Aberbaijan" and Albania, as an example. [LAUGHTER] I would like to apologize very quickly. I stand corrected. [LAUGHTER] Azerbaijan is actually pronounced "Aberbaijan." [LAUGHTER] And Armenia is pronounced Albania. [LAUGHTER] I-- [APPLAUSE] [CHEERING] I regret the error. Trump ended the war between "Aberbaijan" and Albania. Do better. Do better. Do better. [LAUGHTER] [BLEEP] dumb shit, [BLEEP]-- buh! [LAUGHTER] That wasn't smart either. [LAUGHTER] Now, the visit to England couldn't have gone better for our president. Finally, a country affording our great leader the respect and deference that any sun god would command. We saw the dismissal of a very wellknown chat show host in America last night, Mr. Kimmel. Is free speech more under attack in Britain or America? How dare you, sir? [LAUGHTER] How dare you, sir? [CHEERING] What outfit are you with, sir, the Antifa Herald Tribune? [LAUGHTER] Why, I wouldn't even line my parrot's cage with your rag. [LAUGHTER] There's a very reasonable explanation for what befell this scallywag, Kimball. Well, Jimmy Kimmel was fired because he had bad ratings more than anything else. And he said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk. And Jimmy Kimmel is not a talented person. He had very bad ratings. And they should have fired him a long time ago. So, you know, you can call that free speech or not. [AUDIENCE BOOING] Shut the [BLEEP] up. [LAUGHTER] Yay. You may call it free speech in jolly old England. But in America, we have a little something called the First Amendment. And let me tell you how it works. There's something called a talent-ometer. [LAUGHTER] It's a completely scientific instrument that is kept on the president's desk. And it tells the president when a performer's TQ, Talent Quotient, measured mostly by niceness to the president, goes below a certain level, at which point the FCC must be notified to threaten the acquisition prospects for billion-dollar mergers of network affiliates. These affiliates are then asked to give ultimatums to even larger mega corporation that controls the flow of state-approved content. Or the FCC can just choose to threaten those licenses directly. It's basic science. [LAUGHTER] Read the Constitution. [CHEERING] Read your Constitution. Read it! Look, there are certain rules of free speech that we must all abide by. But in case anyone needs a refresher, we're going to go over the rules again. He does not have a right to have a television show where he lies his ass off to the American people. There are repercussions to spreading lies. Exactly. [LAUGHTER] And even though two months ago, our president, because of his grand ability to see the future-- it's a curse-- [LAUGHTER] --somehow knew that Kimball would be next, as he explicitly said, you can't just make things up on television. People cannot just go on television and mislead viewers with made-up crap. Millions of illegal aliens that border czar Harris brought into the country will be voting. The bottom line is this. There is massive voter fraud. Global warming is a hoax. Crime-- crime is at an all-time high right now. $50 million on condoms in Gaza. They're taking people's pets and killing them and eating them. On January 6, two years ago, the overwhelming majority were peaceful. They were orderly and meek. These were not insurrectionists. They were sightseers. All true. [AUDIENCE BOOING] Oh, your lordship. [LAUGHTER] I do not know whence these peasants come. [LAUGHTER] That last roll of clips, all true, especially that last one about sightseers. Because technically, anything you see is a sight. [LAUGHTER] Even-- even if-- even if that is-- even if that is you punching a cop. I see. [LAUGHTER] Therefore, I am sightseeing. [LAUGHTER] But of course, even before this Jason Kringle situation at ABC, there were plenty of other people in America exercising their free speech incorrectly. So here are some examples of things you cannot say about your political opponents. You can't call someone who you disagree with a fascist. Leaders cannot call their political opponents Nazis and fascists and enemies of the state. How horrible and dangerous it is to view people with whom we disagree as somehow being less than human. Thank you. You can't say fascist. You can't say enemy of the state. You can't say less than human. These are simple rules that any responsible member of a society can easily follow. The Democrats, they're fascists. Joe Biden, he's an enemy of the state. It's a very demonic party. Nancy Pelosi said, please don't call them animals. They're human beings. I said, no, they're animals. Of course, I think she's an animal too, you want to know the truth. [AUDIENCE BOOING] Technically correct. [LAUGHTER] She's not a mineral. [LAUGHTER] Anyway, he said that a long time ago, back when I was doing a semester abroad in "Abubaijan." [LAUGHTER] You know what? It's not really about the specific words. It's about having a basic sense of humanity. People on the left are much likelier to defend and celebrate political violence. This is not a both-sides problem. The First Amendment, though, does not protect entertainers who say crass or thoughtless things, as Jimmy Kimmel did. Thank you. Thank both of you. [LAUGHTER] Or I think we only have to be nice to one of you. [LAUGHTER] You know, it is true. I do-- point taken. Only a bad person would celebrate violence or make crass jokes about it. Nancy Pelosi, well, she's got protection when shes in DC-- apparently, her house doesn't have a lot of protection. Donald Trump, Jr. shared an image of a hammer and a pair of underwear that had the caption, "Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready." Well, maybe Paul Pelosi needs the hammer instead of the metal. Well, it's metal. All right. Rachel, good to-- It's metal. [AUDIENCE BOOING] No, no, no. Stop. And by the way, there were consequences. This gentleman had to leave television. [LAUGHTER] I'm not sure where he went. But I'm sure it's not some prestigious, consequential position he's not remotely qualified for. Listen, these two-- these two-- [APPLAUSE] These two could learn a lesson from our dear president, who, like Santa, knows that we are all God's children and would never-- that is what Santa is, right? God's-- or is that-- I'm not so up on the lore. [LAUGHTER] I know he's good. But the president knows we're all God's children. And the president would never make light of a politically motivated attack. We'll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco. [CROWD BOOING] How's her husband doing, by the way? Anybody know? You see, that's how it's done. You stop in the middle of a speech to inquire about the condition of an 82-year-old man, who was attacked with a hammer in his own home. He has a fractured skull, Mr. President. But thank you for asking. Your kindness is only outshined by your manliness. [LAUGHTER] So I don't know who this-- [APPLAUSE] I don't know who this-- this-- Johnny Drimmel Live ABC character is. But the point is, our great administration has laid out very clear rules on free speech. Now, some naysayers may argue that this administration's speech concerns are merely a cynical ploy, a thin gruel of a ruse, a smokescreen to obscure an unprecedented consolidation of power and unitary intimidation, principleless and coldly antithetical to any experiment in a constitutional republic governance. Some people would say that. Not me, though-- I think it's great. [LAUGHTER] For more, we go to our correspondents, who are live at the DonaldHam LincTrump Monument and Casino. Very much appreciate it. Very much appreciate you joining us. Guys, you know, all this swirling around-- are the naysayers and the critics right? Is Donald Trump stifling free speech? [CLEARING THROAT] (IN MONOTONE) Of course not, John. Americans are free to express any opinion we want. To suggest otherwise is laughable. Ha, ha, ha. We are a nation of diverse perspectives. And we are not afraid to be different. Ronny, Ronny, Ronny, what's up with your tie? You're going to get us in trouble. No, this is-- this is the only red tie I have, OK? It's fine. That's not red. It's-- it's pink. It's not pink. It's at least salmon, all right? That's-- that's a shade of red. It's not red enough. It's gotta be MAGA red. Can you calm down? God, is this your first dictator? [LAUGHTER] Listen. Hey. [CHEERING] Listen. They don't care about the exact shade, OK? It's just about being visibly uncomfortable while you praise them like a toddler. We love you, Donald. [LAUGHTER] You did so good. You get all your poopy in your potty. So good, so good. You did so good. We're proud of you. I couldn't have said it any differently without, obviously, getting into trouble. Now, before we go to our commercial break, we'd like to end this segment, like we do every night here at The Daily Show and have been ending our segments for years-- [BLOWS PITCH PIPE] [LAUGHTER] [BLOWS PITCH PIPE] # Oh, Donald # # We pledge to thee our world # # From the hottest country in the world # [CHEERING] # You only leader with no fake newses # # And we don't even notice your cankles or your bruises # [LAUGHTER] # You ended 8 to 10 wars # # And even though some of those countries # # don't really exist # # You deserve all the prizes # # I'm talking Nobel Prizes # # Prize, prize, prize # [CHEERING] # You have a massive penis # # Much bigger than normal # [LAUGHTER] Your Operation Warp Speed got us the COVID vaccine fax, which we don't like, but it was a great thing. But don't take it-- y'all come back to me, please. [LAUGHTER] # He's a superhero who needs no cape # # And he was not technically convicted of-- # [BEATBOXING] # Yeah, Donald # # We love you, bro # # Because you're in the-- # OK. [CLEARING THROAT] # Oh, Donald, we love you #
