Massie questions Patel about Epstein case

Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. The gentleman is recognized.

So I've got four documents I'd like to introduce into the record. The first one is Jeffrey Epstein's sick story played out for years in plain sight. And Acosta is quoted in here saying, "I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone." The second document is 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 StreetJournalarticle that highlights Ehud Barak's 36 meetings with Jeffrey Epstein. He was the former prime minister of Israel and head of military intelligence for Israel.

Without objection. And may have held that title when he met Epstein. And then, yes.

Without objection. The gentleman will hold for a second. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one UC request, this is Judge Engelmayer's decision from August in US versus Epstein,stating, "The government's 100,000 pages of Epstein files dwarfs the 70-odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials."

Without objection. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 non-prosecution agreement hamstrung future investigations. Those constraints only apply to the 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. Jes Staley, CEO of Barclays Bank, who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked victims to, victims including minors, such as Virginia Roberts Giuffre, 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 indictment. So is the loophole here, or is it your assertion, that these victims aren't credible, that the 302's maybe didn't produce credible statements that rise to a probable cause?

It's not my assertion, sir. It's the assertion of two different United States Attorney's offices from three separate administrations who investigated those same materials at the time. The 302 documents in the FBI's possession?

They reviewed all that, yes, sir. And so have you reviewed those 302 documents, where the victims' name, the people who victimized them? Have I personally? No, but the FBI has. So how can you sit here and in front of the Senate and say there are no names.

I said--

I named one today. I said, we are not in the practice at the Department of Justice and FBI of releasing victims' 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.

OK, I've got to move on here. Were you present when the AG had the White House event, when she released the binders to the social media influencers?

I was, yes. So if you were 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 new 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 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 they were in such a rush. And the victims are not happy about that. 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 interagency, not I, the FBI, that was provided to us. 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 turned over to the FBI, the FBI will look at any new investigative leads. 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? 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, I have a unanimous consent request. The gentleman yields back. Unanimous consent request from the gentleman from New York.

I ask unanimous consent to introduce an unsigned memorandum from July 7, 2025, that says we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties, with the insignia of the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Without objection.