As I was mentioning, our counter intelligence operations and cases brought against the Chinese are up by, I think, something like 40%. And specifically, the cases in Michigan show two threat streams, not just against our agricultural industry, which is a threat to national security, but they were also bringing in um chemical agents and mushrooms. I'm not the exact expert to that would have ultimately hurt our population. We arrested and charged all of those individuals and we were aggressively going after them in every single state because they weren't doing it in Michigan alone.

Should un research universities across the United States be doing a thorough job of vetting Chinese nationals that are coming to their universities? They should. Uh turning to spying in America, you know, we heard the stories about Diane Feinstein, Senator Diane Feinstein's um driver who was a Chinese spy. We're familiar with Linda's son who worked in Governor Hokll's office, Christine Fang in California. Um, are you uh what are you doing to find these people who are Chinese spies that are trying to burrow themselves into the politics of America? Because we know it's happening, right?

Yes, it is. And what our counter intelligence um unit is doing is aggressively seeking the intelligence into where these individuals are working. Then we are utilizing our operational authorities to go in and investigate them either through our human source networks and collecting information through lawful process online search warrants and data so that we can bring proper arrest charges and publicize to the world what they're doing here. And just because we've caught a few doesn't mean we've caught everybody. We've got a lot more to go.

I get one more quick question in. Uh the FBI harass arrested a judge in Wisconsin, Hannah Dugan, for interfering with a federal law enforcement operation. Um could you tell us a little bit about that and is a judge above the law here in the United States of America? Well, no one is and that case is ongoing, but as you stated in these allegations that there was an interference in a federal lawfully executed federal law enforcement priority that was interfered with. I yield back. Mr. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Director Patel, I believe you had a primary importance in in starting Operation Viper in Memphis. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And Operation Viper brought in the FBI, the DEA, the ATF uh to help Memphis police in in policing the city. That'll be phase two, sir. Phase one was um FBI and local law enforcement in Memphis for the last few months. Okay. uh you you did a good job and and police director and the mayor have told me that that was been helpful. Uh the FBI working with the police and the FBI are trained in law enforcement. They know Miranda rights. They know how to do policing and they do a good job working with the police. Uh do you think that the National Guard is necessary to do the work that the FBI is doing now?

Thank you. I I do think it's necessary to finish it. What we've done is 500 arrests in Memphis and 110 federal indictments. But what we need to do is we've only secured a piece of where the criminal conduct is incurring in Memphis and we can't work inside uh perimeters that are not established and safe and we don't have the manpower to give us the space to fully go into the areas where the criminal activity remains. Well, are you suggesting that the National Guard is going to go into the more crime heavily crime areas? They're going to establish like they did in Washington DC perimeters where local law enforcement and the FBI, DEA, ATF, and US Marshalss can go into. Um, we can't be going into all these areas knowing that they're extremely volatile and jeopardizing the safety of our agents. But did the National Guard do anything in in Washington to to help the FBI stay safe from these dangerous elements? They established perimeters. established perimeter and the criminals knew about it so they it was a visible force sir so they kind of saw it well what you did I commend you for what you did and I think the FBI coming in we have a crime problem in Memphis the FBI has helped DEA will help and the uh ATF will help I don't think the National Guard is going to help and what I've seen they're not trained in they're not trained in law enforcement are they no sir and so that could be a problem u who will direct the National Guard in Memphis will it be uh will they have control over your agents no sir they Who will who will have control over your agency? You well the SACE and then ultimately the chain of command up to Washington DC will control the FBI but there's a task force that was put together that is going to be led by an inter agency the heads of US Marshalss DEA and FBI will be working together with DHS uh collectively on this.

Have you visited Memphis before? Yes sir I have. So you know how good a city it is. I love Memphis. A lot of us do. And Memphis is a great city, great history. Civil rights museum might say something about slavery, but that's that was the history needs to be taught. Blues, Elvis, Street, Beiel Street, right? Barbecue and people should come. It's not a troubled city. We've got some crime, but it's not a troubled city. We're not troubled, and we uh love our city, and we hope that the National Guard doesn't come in and and cause people to have questions about Memphis because it's a city they should visit. Uh, let me ask you this about you said that the homicide rates are coming down to an all-time low. Uh, in modern recorded US history, yes. When does modern recorded history start? I think the FBI, and I'll get back to you on this, um, has stats on that going back about 30 years, sir. Okay. I was thinking back to Azie and Harriet, and I didn't think you could beat Azie Harriet's time. Um, secondly, you you mentioned the Estring case. Did any of the women that were victims and they came up here and had a press conference and all, did any of them contact your office and asked to give information? To my knowledge, no, sir. If they did, let me ask you first. Is there a statute of limitations on sex crimes like that with sex with a minor rape? The DOJ is the expert, but I do not believe there's a statute on that limitations on that. So, there's not a statute of limitation. Should you not be interviewing those people who know who raped them and the names and the places and give you that information? That seems like that's a treasure trove of information and it's a serious serious serious number of crimes. Sir, I couldn't agree with you more. We've been very public about asking individuals to come forward with new information and we would run out every single lead on that. Well, I'm sure the women will come forward, especially today to assure that they will get an opportunity because that seems like something we ought to do. Uh the uh you Mr. Driscoll, what was his reputation? I can't comment on Mr. Driscoll's matter. It's an ongoing litigation. Yeah, but his reputation you could tell us about. I can tell you I can't tell you about his reputation. His work um has been laid out in that lawsuit. How many of the FBI agents who worked on nine the nine January 6 case have been fired? I don't have that number, sir. Do you have a ballpark figure? No. But I can tell you that individuals based on case assignments in the FBI that I have led have not been terminated for case assignments. Thank you, sir. Come back to Memphis and you work with Kevin Kane in our in our tourism bureau. He's great. Thank you. And thank you for your work in Memphis. Gentlemen, back to Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous consent request. Gentleman's recognized.

So, uh, 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. May it 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 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.

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 two different United States attorneys offices from three separate administrations who investigated those same materials in lifetime. 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 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 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 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 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 victim's 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, I have a unanimous gentleman yields back. Unanimous consent request from the gentleman from New York. I ask unanimous consent to introduce an unsigned memorandum from July 7th, 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, Mr. uh chairman, I have a unanimous unanimous consent request. Uh, it's a article entitled DOJ deletes study showing domestic terrorists are most often right-wing. Objection. Thank you. Gentleman from the Georgia is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Director Patel, thank you for being here today. I want to um first uh talk about the um significant role that the FB FBI plays in uh combating the national security threats posed by our nation's greatest threat uh our nation's greatest security threat uh China and the Chinese Communist Party. Um, it's a fact that um, China is America's most significant national security threat. Isn't that correct? I would say so, sir. And you would agree with me that China wants to uh dominate the United States of America? I think that's largely their plan. And it want they want to dominate the world both militarily and economically. Isn't that correct? I think so. And sir, uh, you've been FBI director for the last, uh, what, eight months? Seven months. Yes. Seven months. And, um, and during that time, have you held any stock in any companies founded in China? I don't believe so. Well, you do own stock in a company known as Elite Depot, don't you? Which one? Sorry. Elite Depot. You own stock. I think that's I I'll have to get back to you. I think it's a law firm and it's a company out of Singapore. Okay. Well, no. The company out of Singapore which is owned by Elite Depot is the Shaheen company which was founded in China. Correct. That company operates out of Taiwan. They changed their headquarters from uh China back in 2022 to Singapore uh for tax purposes, but it's owned by a Chinese billionaire. I think his name is Charlie Zeus. And um and you own stock in the company that owns Shien, which I disclosed during my confirmation process. Yes, you certainly did. And um now do you still hold that stock in that Chinese company? Pursuant to the um the Department of Justice who reviewed my material that was submitted during my confirmation process. Um I was able to hold certain stocks and they made the decision. You still hold the stocks that you have? You you still hold on to these uh Chinese stocks? These stocks in this Chinese company? I disagree that it's a Chinese company, but I was in the DOJ when you're appointed makes a call on what you can and can't possess. Now, let me ask you this. Chinese companies steal trademarks. They produce counterfeit products and sell them over the internet on platforms such as Shien. Uh they steal intellectual property. They steal data from uh American companies. And to me, it seems inconsistent with your role as FBI director that you would own stock in a company that is based in a country that is the nation's premier national security threat. It's like you are putting your own financial security over the security of the nation. I disagree with that characterization. Well, I think the American people look at it like it's a classic situation of the fox guarding the hen house. If the FBI is charged with investigating uh espionage, economic espionage uh by companies uh controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and you are the director of the FBI, you've got a conflict of interest. Sir, I would just show if there's any intimate intimation that I'm Why are you holding on to this stock? It wasn't a decision I made. And it's and it's valued at up to $5 million as of when you last reported. Correct. $5 million in stock. That I don't follow it that you don't follow it, but you're still making money off of it. I don't have any money off of anything. What I have done Trump's trade policies directly impact the value of that Chinese stock. Won't you agree with that? Which trade policy? I'm not a trade expert. Okay. All right. But I want to tell you this crazy on me today. Let me ask you this question. Why are you hiding pedophiles? Why are you shielding pedophiles? Why are you protecting pedophiles? That is maybe the most offensive thing you could say to me given the numbers. Well, you have not released the numbers of pedophiles. You were aware of the arrested client list that was published in the 18,000. I'm the gentleman has expired. Um, the gentleman yield back. Can you answer the question? Of course. The gentleman can answer the question. Since I took over the FBI, there has been a 33% increase. Sir, all of that started under Christopher. Your time is done. No, it didn't. The witness gets to answer the question and then we'll go to our next director, sir. And you're coming in here trying to take credit for something that a previous director instituted and largely brought to conclusion. I take clear that the the director offensive has numbers so much better than the previous director. If you want to answer the question, I take no credit. The men and women of the FBI have seen a 33% increase in the number of counter intelligence arrests out of the PR. All of a sudden when you coming in 7 months ago gentleman is tired and on the pedophile act for that we have arrested 1500 trial child predators in the last 7 months under investigations initiated by the prior director the director's good work and we really appreciate that the time the gentleman has expired. We now go to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the chairman. I thank the FBI director for coming before the committee. I assume the FBI director uh Mr. Patel, I believe uh you probably agree with me that there is a significant organized effort uh on the left uh side of the political spectrum to advance criminal organizations being able to put more criminals out on the streets that what we've seen we've seen this in in daily action. Are you familiar with the report that came out this last Monday from the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund? I I'm I'm not familiar with that. Sorry. So this report came out this past Monday and it said that significant amount of the money flowing out of George Soros and other leftist organizations and funders has been funding DAs and prosecutors and quote many of these DAs had never managed an office prosecuted a criminal case developed organizational policies in dozens of America's largest cities and counties. This report finds these progressive district attorneys have outsourced core parts of the American criminal justice system to activists and political donors taking direction and advice on everything from staffing decisions and communication strategy organizations. It's a complex web of donors going in through these organizations to radical put radical DAs and prosecutors out there putting criminals on the streets. Does the FBI director agree that this exists and is a problem? I will accept the factual representation and if that exists it is a problem. the organizations such as Tides, the Fair and Just Prosecution, Briner Center for Justice, Partnership for Safety and Justice, the Vera Institute of Justice, the amount of dollars flowing from George Soros through into these organizations and to the various prosecutors that have resulted in increased crime on our streets, including the brutal murder of the Ukrainian refugee in Charlotte. I bring that up because that is one component of the the problem. In addition, we have an organized effort targeting our border, the NOS's, the nonprofits, and the deep pockets, the United Nations, charitable organizations, and a long list of over 250 organizations that the Center for Immigration Studies put out that lays out a complex web of organizations that were moving people into our country, knowing that they're dangerous, knowing that they're criminal, associated with taxpayer dollars flowing through the United Nations. and donor dollars flowing through organizations including ostensibly religious ones putting these dangerous individuals on the street that resulted in fental in our communities that resulted in the death of Jocelyn Nungare of hundreds thousands even as the director testified a 100,000 people dying from these narcotics every year all of this in an organized effort a complete um effort by the radical left to use taxpayer dollars and these dollars to put people on our streets. In addition, the extent to which we've seen now with the Southern Poverty Law Center and their hate map targeting, for example, the Family Research Council where we had a shooting right here in DC over a decade ago, putting Charlie Kirk, putting a target on TPUSA, Antifa, other radical organizations that are very specifically organized and targeting conservatives and ordinary Americans. How about the organized effort to infiltrate our schools and advance a transgender agenda and advance a radical agenda? Perhaps one that we will see exposed further in the individual that actually shot Charlie Kirk. So here's my question. Will you as the director and are you as the director pursuing all legal channels to follow the truth wherever it may lead on this organized effort? one and two, do you agree that Congress should take all action necessary to expose this web of dollars that are flowing to undermine our way of life? I got another minute in my time, then I'd like to hear from you on this topic broadly. Uh, I'll keep it short. Um, investigatively speaking, we are doing the following. We are following the money. We are following the money in every organization and every person that is violating the federal code. And it doesn't matter what your background or ideology is. We are following the money. We are using legal process to following that money. Issuing subpoenas to follow that money. Using grand juries to follow that money. And when we have results to recommend for prosecution to the Department of Justice, we will do that. And we will continue to publicize documents through Congress. Yes. When we make these findings, Mr. Chairman, I'd like unim insert the record outsourcing justice by the law enforcement legal defense fund that I alluded to before. I would ask the ament to add a 2024 list provided by the center for immigration studies on these United Nations and other affiliated groups that are responsible over 250 of them for moving individuals into our country in a coordinated effort. Um, I would like a unanimous consent to insert a letter that I sent that currently has 33 members of the United States House of Representatives have signed on it calling for a special select committee to pursue the organized effort from the radical left to target our way of life and undermine our security by putting criminals on the street and having our borders being wide open and putting us in danger. Um, and uh, with that I would yield back. Without objection, gentleman yields back the Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of unanimous concern request. Uh, one is uh a uh letter from Tom Senator Tom Cotton uh dated last year urging the US to quote ensure that data from US companies is not harvested by the Chinese Communist Party through the purchase of Shien software and technology. Objection. And uh also a uh a um statement by uh Marco Rubio, then Senator Marco Rubio, which warned our UA our UK allies about quote Shien's deep ties to the People's Republic of China. Without objection. Also, uh a um crime is a uh the record crime is down in 2025. Trump doesn't deserve credit, which demonstrates that the crime rates have been decreasing since 2023, which was published by the Vera Institute. Also a um uni unanimous consent request uh to uh enter into the record a NPR report uh from July of 17 July of 2024. GOP vows to make America safe again. Statistics contradict their growing crime claim. Without objection. Also, a report uh out of the American Presidency Project dated January 17, 2025, record low crime during the Biden Harris administration. Without objection. Also, Joe Biden is correct that violent crime is near a 50-year low, which was a uh Politifact publication of May 2024. And last but not least, a uh FBI releases 2024 reported crimes in the nation statistics. These are FBI statistics published uh on August 5th, 2025 which details decreases in murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery in 2024. Without objection, gentlemen, gentleman from KY's recognized for unanimous consent.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit uh two sets of documents. The first is a series of emails from the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. They are making foyer requests to get their own FBI files and not having any success. So, um I want to bring attention to that by submitting that to the record. The second document that I want to submit to the record, uh, for the record, I know we don't usually read these. This one's not readable. Uh, it's completely redacted, uh, for the most part, the first 50 pages. This is actually the search warrant that was served on James O'Keeffe uh, for a diary that he had already given to the government two months before. And as it turns out, there were no indictments here. yet he still doesn't know why he was raided and I think he deserves to know. So without objection. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.

Director, the first time you saw Donald Trump's name was in the Epstein files. Did you close the files or keep reading? I have reviewed not the entirety of the files. So I have You haven't reviewed all of the Epstein files personally? No. You're the director of the FBI. This is the largest sex trafficking case the FBI has ever been a part of. Buck stops at the top and your testimony today is you have not reviewed all the files. What I've been doing is been busy providing the safest country this country has seen in modern US history in historic speed because the men and women of the FBI are given the resources to reduce the homicide rates to reduce the drug trafficking rate to reduce the amount of children that are being trafficked and the number of sounds like those children being traffic. I appreciate the director reviewing the files. You said you don't know the number of times Trump's name appears in the files, so it could at least be a thousand times. Is that right? The number is a total misleading factor. We have not released anyone's name. We have not released anyone's name in the file that has not been credible. Director, could it release every piece of legally permissible information? You can characterize the numbers however you want it. Claim me my time. Director, it sounds like if you don't know the number, it could at least be a thousand times, which me it's not. Is it at least 500 times? No. Is it at least 100 times? No. Then what's the number? I don't know the number, but it's not that. Do you think it might be your job to know the number? My job is to provide for the safety and security of this country. My job is not to engage in political innuendo so you can go out to the sticks and get your 22nd hit in your fundraising article. Keep going. Reclaiming your time because the people of California are being underserved by your representation. President 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. Your fixation on this matter and baseless accusations that I'm hiding pedophiles is disgusting. Anyone that says that needs to look at the stats alone and go back to the state of California who's receiving the biggest surge in FBI resources through my redeployment because the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, director, remembering your oath to tell the truth, did you ever tell Donald Trump his name is in the files? I have never spoken to President Trump about the Epstein files. Did you ever tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team. Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files and we have released where President Trump 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. 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 this country and the number of pedophiles that are legally harbored in your sanctuary cities in California? I'll work with you on that. That belongs to gentleman from California. Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? The question has been asked and answered. You've not answered it and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt. Director, did Donald Trump ever say to you just find and release the entire truth? Don't worry if I'm in it. The instructions from the administration were to release all credible information and we have done that. Did Donald Trump ever provide information about Jeffrey Epstein as an informant? Donald Trump has not been and I can only speak for the FBI an informant of the FBI. So, director, you've played this cute shell game where you say you can't release everything because the court has said that it legally is not allowed to be released. But the court calls Judge Richard Burman said that when you went to the court, quote, "Information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales pales in comparison to Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice." So, let's move on. Director, you wrote a book called Government Gangsters. You identified 20 individuals in that book. You put me on that list, at the top of the list. Thank you. My children find it flattering. 20 of those individuals have been investigated or have had adverse actions. Director, considering that you have identified these people as quote government gangsters, will you recuse yourself from making any investigation decisions about these individuals? Anyone that has been terminated at the FBI has been done so failed to meet the muster and their constitutional work on the audiovisal capabilities. I'm going to borrow your terminology and call on your entire career in Congress. been a disgrace to the American people. You can reclaim your time all you want. Mr. Chairman, you're going to allow a witness to speak this way. Mr. Chairman, would you accuse yourself? The gentleman has no time. Mr. Chairman, would you admonish the witness not to insult members? Gentleman has no time. The Mr. Chairman committee will remember. Quick point of order. Um, could the gentleman be extended an additional 20 seconds to complete his thoughts since the witness decided to interrupt him? And the witness will be able to respond if he wants. We'll make sure to do that. My question is, will you, director, recuse yourself, yes or no, from investigating or making decisions about the 60 individuals, including myself, that you identified as government gangsters? Yes or no? Time of the gentleman has expired. The witness may respond if he would like. And the answer was no, as I heard. Correct. Okay. The gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh, thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. Um, I wanted to talk a little bit about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the FBI's subsequent investigation. I know it's really sensitive and uh, you know, you can make the call as to whether or not obviously it's it's something that you can respond to, but uh, I think it's still fresh on many people's minds. I want to congratulate you and Utah law enforcement for the work you did in uh in identifying the suspect and and apprehending him. Uh according to public reports, and I think this is what maybe it's um I I still have questions about and maybe the public does. According to public reports, the alleged shooter arrives at on the Utah Valley University campus nearly 4 hours before the shooting. Is was that your understanding? Is that kind of I'll let the public reports reflect themselves. I don't have the exact timeline. Okay. So, we don't have any idea kind of his prep or how he set up or how he utilized that time when he first showed up on campus. All of those are being currently investigated through our cell phone analysis and through our witness interviews. And the state of Utah has now announced charges seeking the death penalty against this suspect. So, we're a little limited in what we can continue to say. Sure, I understand. And the suspect, like you referred to, is then captured on security footage jumping off the roof of the alleged shooting location, the Loy Center. Do we have any idea how the suspect got up on the roof in the first place? I I think for members of Congress, especially after Butler and Pennsylvania, it it's just unimaginable that there could be some type of security breakdown prior to an event of that size where somebody could access a rooftop. Um, so not commenting on the case, but having gone to the crime scene and walked the steps that we believe were taken, the roof was actually readily accessible through an exterior stairwell, so anyone could have gotten on it. Okay. Okay. Um the suspect flees on foot to kind of this wooded area where he drops the rifle, wraps it in a towel, and then proceeds to his staged vehicle and basically drives home. So do do we have any idea what the towel was about? Was it used later to identify a place where the firearm was left or what we sorry what we can tell you is the towel there was a screwdriver found on the rooftop which DNA was collected off of and the towel was found wrapped around the firearm in question in a wooded area next to the campus. All have been processed for DNA. And then according to the suspect's roommate, there were allegedly messages on instant messaging platforms, specifically Discord, suggesting the towel may have been used to identify that weapons location. So, the public reports have suggested that the shooter acted alone. Do we still believe that that's true? Do we have any idea as to whether or not those Discord messages led us to believe that the shooter may have had help in any way or assistance? I can only speak to the FBI's investigation and our investigation is ongoing and we are interviewing any of those individuals involved in that chat and other individuals in the area. Very good. And if so, my suggestion, if there are accomplices, I'm sure this is something that the FBI is going to continue to investigate fully and thoroughly into the future. Yes, sir. The reason I asked that is because I don't know that that was necessarily the case uh with Butler, Pennsylvania. So, thank you so much for your persistence kind of in this matter. There's still a lot of uh public questions that need to be asked. Uh let me shift uh to another topic very quickly. On July 31st, 2025, the DOJ and the CIA declassified the annex to special counsel John Durham's 2023 report on Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Um the 29page Durham annex contains previously classified information about among other things the investigative referral of the Clinton campaign plan. Uh, why would somebody place documents in a burn bag related to this case? That case is very much ongoing, so I can't comment on the stylization of the evidence we're collecting. Can you comment at all on the Durham Annex as I described it? The Durham annex, which has been publicly released thanks to the FBI's commitment to transparency, is one of the documents that's being utilized. And in general terms speaking for burn bags, sir, a burn bag is what you use to put classified documents into generally because that is literally how you destroy them. So it it appears that efforts were made by the Clinton campaign to reach out to the FBI agents or the Clinton sympathizers in the intelligence community in order to lead more credibility to the Clinton campaign plan. Do you think that's an accurate characterization? Again, I'm not going to characterize that material because it's part of an ongoing investigation. Thanks for being here today. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Gentleman from California is recognized.

Thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. The FBI searched Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan residence. Correct. I believe that happened in 2018. I think there was two locations, sir. 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 of the time. It's a New York Times article that says Jeffrey Epstein's indicted on sex charges as discovery of nude photos is disclosed dated July 8th, 2019 and the Times reports a trove of lude photographs of girls was discovered and 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 each 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 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 photographs 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 Michael FBI as the FBI I'll get back to you if the FBI specific about a 100 hours of testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. Wouldn't it be good for the FBI to interview Michael Wolf? I'm not saying they haven't. I just don't know. Has FIA 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. 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 Epste? 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 going to move on now and talk about Epstein's client list. You confirmed that exists. Attorney General Pambody confirmed earlier this year that it exists. So, 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. FBI director could not answer whether Donald Trump was on EP. Gentlemen's time is expired. now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the director for being here and for uh his work over the last several months um removing the taint of partisanship that has infected the intelligence community over the uh past several years under the last administration, under the last several directors, standing up for law enforcement, standing up for the brave men and women who work in your agency. Uh but to set the record straight, you know, we have to correct the record. And and the record um early days of the first Trump administration saw a dramatic spike in news stories that contain sensitive and sometimes classified details about the FBI's bogus Russia probe. About a leak a day. It's unacceptable that senior FBI officials coordinated to leak classified information to try and harm President Trump. Um documents produced to the committee in August of this year revealed that the FBI interviewed a former uh, intelligence committee staffer who gave details on a systematic process through which leaks of classified information were affected by then chairman, now Senator Adam Schiff. Were these findings escalated within the bureau's chain of command? And if so, to what level? Sorry, were the findings escalated? Were these findings that were given to us escalated within the bureau's chain of command? And if so, what level did you receive this information? That that entire matter is currently under investigation by the people at the FBI that handle leaks of classified information. All right. It's good to know that there is an ongoing investigation. Um, can you tell me whether these leaks uh to the media compromised any ongoing FBI investigations during the Trump Russia probe? I can tell you generally speaking, the leaks of classified information are detrimental to any work the FBI is doing. Now, former Director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had never been an anonymous source, nor authorized anyone to be an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation. Was Comey's testimony true? In reference to Director Comey, um I'm very limited in what I can say because of what the current status of those matters are with the

FBI and the Department of Justice. When I am able to make those public, I will. Can you tell me if there's an ongoing investigation there?

Again, without identifying any individuals related to the information you're generally speaking about, there is an ongoing matter that has been under review by the department and the FBI for some time because we know that the documents that we received last month revealed that former Director Comey used Columbia University law professor as a conduit to leak stories to the media that contained classified information.

Let me move on to the way that uh the FISA process was weaponized by past directors. Um, prior to your confirmation, you raised concerns about government misuse of FISA, including section 702, stating that FISA was in need of major major reform. Specifically, you highlighted that u the Fisk report that the FBI had conducted 278,000 improper searches of the FISA database. Do you remain concerned about governmental abuse of FISA in section 702?

I'm always concerned, but what we've done since I became FBI director is implement new um audit systems. We have nearing 100% review of the 702 query system that you are specifically referring to. And we've also eliminated anyone that has ever touched that database that has in any way made a mistake uh whether intentional or not. And we have also um identified a system in which those going forward who misuse the 702 system. They don't get two strikes, they get one and you're done.

Okay. Okay. I'm glad you mentioned you're continuing to audit because as you know in May the New York Times reported you closed the FBI's office of internal auditing. Uh can you explain why you decided to close this office?

Yeah, because under the new restructuring of the FBI to save resources. There were two different places doing the exact same thing. We have a specific division dedicated to audits. I didn't need another audit system doing the audits again. And so we folded some of those folks with their expertise into our specific division and then took the rest of those folks and are moving them out across the country.

Under previous FBI leadership, uh FBI agents were found to have lied to the Fisk. There have been hundreds of thousands of violations of the querying standards in light of past violations. What action is the FBI taking to ensure that similar abuses do not occur in the future?

U exactly what I've outlined. You cannot have access to the 702 query system if you improperly query that system at all at any time in your career.

Okay. At a Senate hearing two years ago, your predecessor, Director Ray, testified FBI had previously purchased US phone geoloccation data for a specific national security pilot project and further stated that the project had not been active for some time and that the FBI relies on court authorized process to obtain location data from companies. Does the FBI purchase location data or any other data of Americans from data brokers?

I don't believe so, but I'll get back to you.

Thank you. That'd be important. I appreciate that. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentlemanly from Washington's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, before you 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. Swallwell 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. Massiey'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 this stat and you talk about coverups, man. You talk about cover ups and 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. 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 credible.

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. And keep 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 or 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, not Obama. President Trump called the entire thing 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 meet with the women who were sexually and raped and groomed to the gentle lady 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 Abiden 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. Folks, and nor should they, nor should they. I don't mean to interrupt you, but my god, of all the amendments to the con, 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 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'll have to 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 seven leading to the 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. Without objection. and also an article dated se uh July 17th, 2025 in Epstein case. Follow the money. Without objection. Okay. Thank you. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Chairman, 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 dollars 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 has been very forthcoming. We will hold any motion to subpoena and obeyance until the conclusion of the hearing. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director Patel, for being here. It is quite clear, quite clear that certain members of this committee, you know, they want their 15 seconds on TV stamping and maybe it's for fundraising. Maybe they're struggling in their district. They need a little bump, but they they turn a committee into a clown show. And and that's what we're seeing. You're being unjustly attacked today. I watched the Senate hearings yesterday. You were attacked there. We know there's an agenda. There's always an agenda. It's the same characters with the same personalities, the same objective, and that is destroy the mega movement. You're being attacked, director, is because you're effective. You highlighted what you've been doing in DC with the president and reducing violent crime. You're very effective. Another individual that was very effective with meaningful debate and dialogue was Charlie Kirk. and they killed him for it. Charlie Kirk was a man of faith first and foremost. He loved his he loved his Lord Jesus. He loved his family. Beautiful wife, beautiful children. Just a remarkable, honorable man that was silenced with this assassin's bullet. I would say if Charlie Kirk lived in the biblical times, he'd have been the 13th disciple. He'd have been the 13th disciple. We have a new committee, if you're not aware, a new select committee regarding January 6th. I'm honored to be on that committee. I'm looking forward to working with other members to expose truth questioning federal agencies that were involved on January 6 like the FBI played a role. But we don't really know director to what extent. We don't know. The January 6 sham committee was not formed by Nancy Pelosi to seek truth. It was nothing about getting to the truth about January 6th. Their sole mission was to damage Donald J. Trump and and end his political career. And everybody knows it. That's what the purpose was. You know what's nice? So, I kind of get to ask the question though, how did that work out for you? Donald J. Trump is back in the White House and America loves him. I spent 30 years in law enforcement. Oh, retired sheriff from a large county of the great state of Texas. I have seen director I have seen more enthusiasm and support for law enforcement today because of what you and Donald Trump have done over the last eight months to protect the American people. The American people couldn't count on their government to protect them. Crime is rampant. And now we have a president and an administration that puts the American people and their safety first. It's interesting. A few minutes ago I was, you know, I I a classmate reached out to me and sent me a I told him I said, "Yes, we got Director Patel in front of our committee today." And Andy wanted me, Andy Kaine wanted me to tell you. He said, quote, "Tell him we love him. Tell him we love him and all the brave warriors exposing the deep state. Cash, you're a great American, sir. You're a great American. Your work as the director of the FBI is commendable. It's commendable. And I want to thank you, sir. Thank you for your service. Keep up the good fight, brother. Don't let him tear you down. Keep up that good fight. You have it in you. With that, sir, I yield back. Gentlemen, yield. Gentlemen, yield to me. Uh, Director Patel, there there were 26 uh the gentleman mentioned the select committee. There were 26 confidential human sources at the capital in January 6, 2021. Four entered the capital and thereby broke the law. Do you know if those individuals were being paid by the Ray FBI?

So, we've provided 600 pages of documents to this committee alone regarding January 6. That's 600 pages more than any of my predecessors. Generally speaking, confidential human sources are always paid by the FBI. That's how it works. I can't speak to the specifics on each one and how much they make.

And we appreciate it. We've reviewed some of that material and you've given us a lot of material that we didn't get from Director Ray. That specific question I think is important to the American people. Um were people who were confidential human sources of the FBI who broke the law. One was one was recommended for prosecution. My understanding is by the information we've received from you, were they actually paid by the very taxpayers who may have got charged with the same same offense?

I think that's important for us to understand. I'll get back to you on that.

Thank you, chair. Now recognizes the gentleman from California. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh welcome, Director Patel. Um I want to focus a little bit on domestic terrorism. We have a graph here data up to 2021. But as you can tell, um domestic terrorism is is on the rise. Uh nation, our citizens under threat, we saw the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Uh two assassination attempts on the president. Uh school shooting Minnesota last month. And closer to home, just a couple of days ago, Huntington Beach peaceful vigil for Charlie Clark infiltrated by neo-Nazis who essentially um made the local individuals attending that event fear for their safety. Um all of us know that a lot of these domestic attacks are by lone wolves. Uh but yet they do leave clues social media or elsewhere. Director Patell, you're it. You're the thin blue line. The FBI, your job to protect our citizens back home from those that would harm us. You have to find the needle in the haststack. Takes a lot of work, a lot of resources. Talking to my local sheriff this morning who said they have they're concerned federal cuts, federal cuts to local grants that help them do the job. Then of course, let's not forget about other threats there are coming before us like high-tech fraud. Local senior recently was talking to me about a text she had gotten a demand by the IRS to send a payment immediately or the IRS agents who are on their way to arrest this individual. Pretty gutsy stuff by folks probably from Europe, North Korea, Russia, China, people, okay, going after those precious savings our senior citizens rely on. Yet the president's proposing a budget cut of $500 million or more to your organization, the FBI. You've said that that'll essentially equate to about 1,300 less jobs at the FBI. So, I'm going to ask you essentially, what is it that we can do to help you do your job? Little concerned? Friday night lights. One of the events I love to do on Friday nights, go to the local high school football game. Sit there at the stadium and and you always say, "What if? What if?" You're the thin blue line. Can you do your job cutting $500 million from your budget?

I think we we are doing our job. And the distinction is with the budget that we have, we are flexing more resources to the field. California is receiving the largest FBI plusup of any state in the union due to that plusup. They're not getting a reduction. No state is getting a reduction. every state is getting a plus up and so I'm utilizing the money that we have to first plus it up and the empty vacancies they that we have those haven't been filled in years not my under my leadership here's here's my concern you're going to do well you're doing more with less is what you're saying yet we're about to vote on a budget that has $88 million more to protect members of Congress the executive branch and the Supreme court. I'm There's a contradiction here. Back on Main Street, we're saying you can do more with less. You can protect them with less money. Yet here in Washington, we're saying we need more money to protect members of Congress. It's a little contradiction here. Or maybe, sir, you ought to talk to leadership about coming in with your management style to protect the Supreme Court, Congress, and the administration. Otherwise, it's essentially a hypocritical situation. We need more protection, yet folks on Main Street can do with less. My concern is folks on Main Street where that's we also were um I think we received uh over 300 million in the big beautiful bill and we've also receiving pots of money from our inner agency. So, this sort of 500 cut isn't um entirely accurate. You're still getting cut 200 million plus. You're still moving your agents to do ICE work. So you are leaving a lot of basis uncovered. And I'm not going to be argumentative with you, Director Patel. I'm just saying if that thin blue line does not hold, people on Main Street will pay the price.

I agree with you, sir. And I just look forward to working with you because I am very concerned that these kinds of budget cuts are shortsighted, especially when my local sheriff calls me and says we need more support and we're looking at budget cuts. I'll work with you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield time. Mr. Chairman, I have another unanimous consent request. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York's recognized for unanimous consent. Uh, I seek to introduce a December 2024 uh, OIG report from the Department of Justice which confirms the conclusion of the Bill Bar Justice Department that the so-called whistleblower, a disgruntled former employee of the intelligence committee, was not a credible witness and there were no further actions taken. Without objection, Mr. Chair, I'd like to submit some items for the record. You bet. Gentleman from California. First one, Trump's deportation diverts FBI agents off child predator cases. Second one, FBI director backtracks on administration's proposed budget cuts. And number three, Trump administration says 70% of ICE detainees do not have criminal convictions. Without objection. Gentleman from Texas is recognized. Thank you, director. Earlier this year, the committee learned of new documents tied to the Crossfire hurricane investigation and the Russia collusion hoax against President Trump. Your efforts in declassifying key documents tied to this investigation allowed the committee to acquire thousands of pages that it did not have previously. Did any of your predecessors make any effort to declassify these documents?

Not to the extent we have.

Did any of your predecessors share or leak any details that were classified at the time?

There are ongoing leak investigations um across the board um at the bureau related to this. I believe one of those is Mr. Comey and I thank you for continuing that investigation.

Among the declassified documents are the Durham report annex, the Crossfire binder and the Nelly or criminal referral. Could you summarize for those watching that what we know about the Russia collusion hoax so far?

Well, sir, I think the the record will speak that um the Russia collusion matter was perpetrated by a uh political party to go overseas and obtain information from a foreign intelligence asset only to have that information which was demonstrabably false turned over to the FBI who walked into a federal FISA secret court and asked for a secret surveillance court order and lied to the federal court. And we know that because someone was convicted of it and uh only to surveil the political opponent. So that is a massive scandal. We helped expose it. And in terms of the pages of productions, I've provided 1,400 pages of production related to Crossfire Hurricane and my predecessors have provided zero.

I appreciate that and I appreciate your courage and commitment to declassifying these important documents for our review and hope that you'll continue with this commitment. Can we expect to see more declassification efforts regarding the Crossfire hurricane and Russia collusion hoax?

Yes.

Thank you. I yield the remaining balance of my time to Chairman Jordan. Oh, I I thank the gentleman for uh yielding. And director, that's when it all started, right? The whole Russia, that's when it all began. And then it was Mueller, then it was impeachment, then it was Jack Smith and Fonnie Willis and Alvin Bragg and you name it. But it all started then. And that's why I think the gentleman from Texas wants to make sure we get all the information there. And I want to go back to when it was changed. We talked about this earlier. Just want to read to you what the CIA officer said to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Quote, Brennan refused to remove the dossier and when confronted with the dossier's main flaws, he responded, "Yes, but doesn't it ring true?" So that's what he initially said. And then when he was talking to this committee, he said the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the steel dossier in the intelligence community assessment. So on one hand, you got a witness who was there who said he refused to remove it even though he knew it was garbage. And then he's on the other hand telling the committee, "No, no, no. We didn't want anything to do with it. It shouldn't have been a part of the intelligence committee assessment." Which we know it was. You know it was. You found that. Those are two entirely different stories. I think Mr. Brennan has some explaining to do frankly what happened there. And I think you said earlier that this whole thing and I think you said to Mr. Gooden, this whole thing is being looked at as part of this grand conspiracy to undermine the president whether it's Comey Brennan Clapper, former head of the intelligence committee, now senator from whoever it is, that's all being looked at. Is that accurate?

Yes, sir.

Well, we appreciate that. And part of what's also being looked at, and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin brought this up earlier, what is a burn bag for, by the way?

Uh, generally speaking, the intelligence community obviously utilizes and possesses classified documents, but drafts of those classified documents and even ultimate finished products of those classified documents have to be recorded andor discarded. And if they are discarded, the only way we do that, the hard copies, is we literally put them in burn bags that are identified specifically for that purpose and there is an very exact courier system in which those burn bags are obtained and the material inside is destroyed.

So it's to get rid of the material, right?

Yes, sir.

And it looks like the annex that Mr. Durham in his investigation had was put into a burn bag by your predecessor. I assume to be destroyed. Is that accurate?

Without getting into the stylization of the evidence, anything that's put in a burn bag is for purposes of destruction.

Do you find that interesting that the Durham annex was placed in the burn bag that you would discover that when you took over as the head of the FBI?

We found a lot of information in a lot of burn bags.

Well, we appreciate uh appreciate you finding that. We'd like to know a little bit more about that and we look forward to that information coming forward. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding. With that, we now recognize the gentleman from Colorado. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding his hearing. Thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. Uh, I have a couple of questions regarding a terrible shooting that occurred in Colorado, state as you may know that I represent. You've testified previously about, I think, what you would describe as your efforts to provide uh more information regarding the investigation with respect to the horrific assassination of Mr. Kirk. And so, you know, that same vein, I'm hoping you can provide this committee and my constituents in Colorado with some clarity. Absolutely. I think as my colleagues know, uh, in Evergreen, Colorado, Jefferson County, a county that I proudly represent at Evergreen High School, uh, a shooter ultimately injured two students were praying for their swift recovery. Uh, there's an article here from Carter Public Radio. The title is, quote, "FBI was already investigating an account that may have been linked to the evergreen shooter." Um you're familiar with the circumstances generally director regarding this terrible of course tragedy. U so my understanding from the public reporting is that an organization reported to the FBI in July of this year regarding uh just reading here from the article that the FBI opened an assessment into a social media account user whose identity was unknown and who was discussing the planning of a mass shooting with threats non-specific in nature. This is the FBI's statement to the press and that the FBI continued to work this assessment investigation to identify the name and location of the user up until September 10th, 2025, which was the day of the tragedy. Can you provide us some clarity on what were the impediments to finding, you know, the account user and maybe describe in greater detail uh the FBI's work in that regard?

Generally speaking, yes, because I know even though the shooter's deceased, the investigation is we're not done. Sure. Um and so the impediments to finding these individuals and you highlight a great point. We had two huge tragedies in the span of days in this country. Um the school shooting in Evergreen, Colorado being one of them. Um and proactively going out onto these social media platforms which are so large is our biggest impediment and we need to rely on the service providers. There's actual legislation, I can't remember the name of it, that's up for renewal which will and I think at the end of the month which gives service providers the ability to report that information in from their end without liability. We need that to continue because while the FBI has so many people and the police are great at doing it, there's just too many platforms to cover down on.

Well, I I appreciate that, uh, Director Patel, and I think we're certainly I'm I'm interested in continuing this conversation because I think the reporting suggests, uh, that, you know, this that there's a pattern and that ultimately, you know, we want to make sure that law enforcement is able to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening in the future. I have a question. It's not meant as a gotcha question, so it just frame it there. Um but it is regards in regards to some reporting around a periodic transaction report that you had filed earlier a periodic transaction report that you had filed earlier this year. So this is in July pursuant to the ethical obligations as a senior executive official u on you remember filing that in July?

Yes.

Yeah. That's so in that report, as best as I can surmise, you disclosed that you devested, you know, $100,000 or more in a variety of different stocks, which I presume was pursuant to the ethics agreement that you negotiated with the Department of Justice. In that same report, there's a disclosure regarding purchases of two different uh well, rather two different transactions. So between $15 to $50,000 in a national coffee house chain and between $50 to $100,000 in a semiconductor company on May 9th and May 12th. Are those transactions that you're doing personally or are these through a stock broker or are these transactions that you're handling yourself?

So how they happen is I submit proposals under DOJ guidance to say, "Hey, we I would like to trade this or that." and they run their review and the FBI runs a review and then they come back and say yes or no and then I make the transaction.

Is there a reason that you decided to make the purchases into those two companies?

Uh generally speaking I before I got this job I was um you know trading stocks but not a lot like most people and I just follow certain industries you know and um I thought they would be a good investment.

It was both both. But not all of the companies were conflicts. Whatever they don't make the call, they make the call.

Sure. I guess my point would be the reason why I ask this why I said it's not a gotcha question. I have for years led an effort here in Congress to try to ban members of Congress, senior executive officials from trading stocks. And it's bipartisan in nature. We're working really hard to get that done, Republicans and Democrats. And you can understand, I think, given your role, given the nature of the position that you hold as the leader of the largest law enforcement agency in our country, that devesting entirely, not you know, doing day trading now, I think, would be something that would be in the interest of the American people. So I just would hope you would consider that and that moving forward that perhaps not purchasing stocks in individual companies I would think would be something that would be worth pursuing.

Gentlemen gentleman's time if you I'm happy to give the witness an opportunity to Thank you. I'll work with you on it.

Gentleman from uh uh Alabama is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Director Patel for being here today. Newly declassified documents confirm that the intelligence community under President Barack Obama knowingly relied on unverified and fraudulent evidence to manufacture a false claim that Russia in fact meddled in the 2016 election. Is there more to be done to uncover the depths and origins of the Russian collusion hoax?

There is, and we're doing it.

Why should Americans still care about that? Director Patel, everybody wants to talk about a weaponized bureaucracy. And when we put out the facts about a weaponized bureaucracy, not because I said so, but because we found the FISA documents, because we found the 302s and the 1023s, then it becomes a political football. My job is to continue to put out that information and let the American public read it for themselves when I'm lawfully able to do so. And that's been my commitment on any subject, Russia gate or otherwise. Wherever the law allows me to do it, I will do it. You know, the one when I first came in in 2020, the number one concern as I was doing town halls was the weaponization of the government against the American citizen. And so, are there things that you're doing structural reforms that implementing so that the FBI cannot be weaponized again, whether it's against President Trump or future elected presidents?

Well, it shouldn't be weaponized against anyone. And the structural reform is simple. If you're going to go after a political individual or someone seeking political office, there has to be a grounded basis in law and fact to open up a criminal investigation. And if there's not, the investigation isn't even opened. And I've also gone back and reviewed other cases that were opened in prior administrations related to public officials, and we've closed a number of them because we felt that some of these actions were weaponized on either side of the aisle. I felt it wholly inappropriate for the FBI to be playing umpire and referee amongst these decision makers when there was no factual or legal basis to continue those investigations. So I shut them down. And I think that's so desperately needed because we need to restore trust in law enforcement and certainly in the DOJ and the FBI so that the American people don't fear the very government that uh that's supposed to protect them. And so thank you for doing that. On August 11th, you released to the committee documents concerning leak investigations that began in 2017. Do you believe these leaks were accidental or were they intentional in order to influence

public opinion against President Trump? When I could publicly make a final decision on that, either through a recommendation of charging that the DOJ makes or findings that I have, I'm able to do so, but they're still not complete.

Why did the FBI under Director Comey want to undermine the Trump administration? I don't know. You'll have to ask him. I think it might have been political.

How will Director Comey be held accountable for his leaks in classified information concerning the Russian collusion hoax? Well, anyone doesn't matter what you did before or what seat you were in. If you leak classified information, that's illegal and we will investigate it fully. And if we can bring enough evidence to recommend charges to the Department of Justice, we will. But as you know, in these leak investigations, it's very difficult to produce the information necessary. We know leaks happen. They literally happen every week. It's one of the most destructive things to this country. Media receives classified information beneficial to one side or the other. I'm a fan of none of it. And I want to shut all of it down. Um, and we need to bring some real cases to deter individuals from doing that. And that's my focus.

What was Comey's role in creating the A. you know, speaking from my memory as the head of the FBI, he was charged um under uh then uh Director Brennan and Director Clapper and the other IC elements to come in with the NSA, CIA, FBI um and ODNI and put together a collection of information on how um the information sort of surrounding Russia came together. So he represented the FBI in that.

Was former director of CIA John Brennan. He he's denied that the steel dossier was used in creating the ICA. Is that true? Well, it's without commenting on him, the FISA has been released and the dossier was in the FISA. It was in four FISAs, so I'll let the public decide.

Well, former director Brennan actually denied repeatedly that he pushed for the steel dossier to be included in the ICA. Is that true? I did not. I'll let his testimony speak for itself, but then deputy director Andy McCabe also testified to the House Intelligence Committee, which has now been declassified, that were there no steel dossier, there would have been no FISA.

Well, my time's getting close, but uh let me tell you this, sir, and I'll well, my colleague from Texas said, "Thank you for the job you're doing. You're making the American people safe. You're making you're restoring trust in these agencies that we so many of us have lost trust in. So, thank you for the work you're doing. That thin blue line, you're doing a fine job and and we want to let you know we appreciate it. Thank you. God bless you."

From California is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, director, for coming here today. And actually, thank you for your response uh to my colleague from New York who asked you earlier about violent extremism. And you said that there is violent extreme ideology on both sides. And I think you um actually alluded to that same statement yesterday in the Senate. So I too have some questions I'd like to ask you. These are not gotcha questions. and um just deny please what you deem to be false.

So Dylan Roof uh who followed white supremacist propaganda murdered nine black parishioners in Charleston in 2015. Do you deny this? I'm sorry. Um Dylan Ruth. Roof. Can you give me uh some more information? Uh you're head of the FBI. You probably know this. If you don't know, that's fine. I can you can give me a reminder. I've got a lot in front of me. It was national news. Uh, Robert Bowers murdered 11 Jewish worshippers in Pittsburgh in 2018. I do remember that. And it was the deadliest anti-semitic attack. So, do you do you admit that that happened? Yeah. I'm not saying the other thing didn't happen. I'm just asking for a little information.

Patrick Cusus, who posted a manifesto about a Hispanic invasion, walked into a Walmart in El Paso, Texas in 2019 and began firing. He murdered 23 people that day and the youngest was 15. Um, do you admit or deny that that happened? I'll take your presentation as accurate.

All right. Well, I have to say all of these cases have been adjudicated. As I said, these are not gotcha questions. These incidents were national news. Um, so and as director of the FBI, you have access to all of this information. So, in 2022, Payton Grenen walked into a supermarket in a black neighborhood in Buffalo, New York, and started shooting. He murdered 10 people that day. And on September 10th, uh, your friend Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Tyler Robinson has been taken into custody and charged. But also on that day, Desmond Holly, a 16-year-old white male, shot and injured two students at a high school in Colorado before killing himself. And according to the Anti-Defamation League, he had a fascination with mass shootings and white supremacy. So, do you admit to deny these facts? Those happened.

Okay. Your predecessor, former FBI director Christoph Christopher Ray, said that one of the most dangerous concerns is that racially motivated violent extremism, especially white supremacists, has been the biggest chunk of our domestic terrorism cases and is responsible for the most lethal attacks over the last decade. Do you do you admit or deny a that he said this? I'll let the record reflect that whatever he said was what he said.

All right. And uh do you agree that there is racially motivated crimes being committed in America? Yes. Yes. Especially white supremacists, which is the biggest chunk of our domestic terrorism. I'm glad that you you said this.

So last week, uh President Trump was asked if there were extremists on both the left and the right. Uh he was actually asked this by Fox and Friends and his exact words were, "I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime. The radicals on the left are the problem and they're vicious and they're horrible and they're politically savvy." Do you agree with the president? I don't speak for the president. The president speaks for himself. Do you agree with the president? I don't. On what matter? On the question that I just asked. Do you agree with his statement about the radical left that there's ideology that's driving violence on both sides? Yes, that's what he acknowledged. No, he he didn't. He didn't. But I'm I'm glad that you're saying that and actually creating some separation between you and the president. And I'm glad that you literally acknowledging that there is violent extremism on both sides.

What's interesting is that the research arm of the Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice, do you know what that is? I'm familiar with them. Okay, great. It is the research arm of the Department of Justice and it published an article in 2024 devoted to domestic radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism. I I I have it. It's interesting that it's no longer on the website. It has been scrubbed. But I ask these questions because what makes a strong qualified director of any business, of any household, of the FBI, what makes a reputable prosecutor is not blind loyalty, but a commitment to the creed that evidence is agnostic and that the evidence will lead you to making the right decisions. And your job, no one's job is to like the data or the evidence. It is to collect it. That is how you gain trust. And Mr. Mr. Chair, I would like to enter into the record if I may. White supremacist group stands by racist ideology with unanimous consent. Without objection. Dylan Roof, the radicalization of the alt-right and ritual ritualized racial violence. Without objection. Thank you. Another article, how Robert Bowers went from conservative to white nationalist. I'd like to enter that into the record. Without objection. Patrick Cusus believed he was fulfilling Trump's wishes in El Paso attack. His attorney said. I'd like to enter that into the record. Without objection. Buffalo shooting. How far-right killers are radicalized online? I'd like to enter that into the record. Without objection. Evergreen high school shooters online activity reveals fascination with mass shootings. White supremacy. I'd like to enter that into the record. Without objection. Murder and extremism in the United States in 2024. A report by the Anti-Defamation League. I'd like to introduce Justice Journal focusing on domestic radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism. I'd like to enter that into the record without objection. And lastly, the libertarian think tank Cato and their analysis on violent extremism um and the right rising in extremist acts. I'd like to enter that into the record without objection. Thank you and I yield back.

Gentle lady yields back. Gentle lady from Wyoming is recognized. Uh just very quickly um Director Patel, thank you for being here, for your service to this country and for the transparency that you have brought to the FBI and for the American people. Uh transparency that was absolutely non-existent in the Biden administration and FBI. I believe that you might have been asked earlier about whether you had had an opportunity to visit with any of Epstein's legal counsel. Were you asked that question earlier? I I think so. Okay. Um, one of the legal councils or legal fixtures for Mr. Epstein was Stacy Plasket, the Democrat delegate to Congress from the Virgin Islands. So perhaps for those on the other side who are interested in talking to Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys, they can sure visit with one of their own colleagues. Um, I want to focus on something that I think is very important that has not been addressed enough today and that is related to the consequences of the Biden open border. One consequence of the Biden border crisis is the impact that it continues to have on our tribal communities with the um cartels taking advantage of our open borders, our the Mexican drug cartels uh by infiltrating our reservations and bringing violence, drugs, murder, trafficking, and more. Last year when I questioned the attorney general Garland about what the DOJ was doing to protect these communities, he simply deflected responsibility and said that Congress had not appropriated sufficient resources uh for them to be able to protect our tribal communities. Mr. Patel, what is the Trump FBI doing to counter the drug cartel infiltration and other violent crime targeting our Native American communities? Thank you. It only took more than half of this proceeding to talk about one of the priorities that the FBI has, which is crimes on tribal lands. Every single crime that we have been talking about, whether it's predicting, child predators, human trafficking, narco traffickers, murder, they all happen on tribal lands as well. And I've said since the beginning, it is a priority, which is why we launched Operation Not Forgotten on tribal lands. And I'm the first FBI director to meet with the staff and tribal leaders here in Washington DC and elsewhere and invited them into my office and headquarters to see them because I need engagement with tribal leadership and I need our police and FBI agents to be engaging with tribal leadership otherwise we're not going to break through. We have 1,900 Indian country cases open right now. We've got 600 indictments this year alone. We cannot forget tribal lands. Every single one of those people lives in the United States of America and it is an absolute priority to protect them and their children just as it is anyone else.

So I think it's fair to say that what Mary Garland said uh testified to that they didn't that the FBI and DOJ did not have the resources to address that. I think that that was an absolutely false statement. Would you agree with me? Was a decision by him not to do so. That's not my decision. At the end of August, the US attorney and FBI announced that nearly 100 personnel representing members of the Safe Trails task force operated near Wyoming's Wind River Reservation to assist with reducing drug trafficking and illegal guns. Director Patel, you have routinely stated that it is your mission to partner with and strengthen local and state law enforcement partners. How does the task force and other FBI efforts bring tribal law enforcement into this process? The major problem with tribal lands is the sheer tyranny of geography and the amount of coverage that they have on land versus the personnel they have to do it. So what we've done is constantly surge resources to tribal lands across this country on a 30 60 90 day rotating basis reporting back to us saying who needs more and what we found is that most of these lands can be assisted by our counter UAS program our drone capabilities and we're going to do it because what's happening is the Mexican drug cartels are literally flying overhead dropping their cargo their narcotics onto this land where no one's looking and then it's being disseminated to children to youth. to adults on that land and killing them. And we got to stop it before it gets dropped off.

Well, and your testimony proves that the Biden administration did not lack the resources to address drug and violent crime in tribal communities or around the United States. It instead expended and wasted these resources investigating parents, Catholics. We now find out Turning Point USA, the RNC, and Republican organizations rather than protecting our Native Americans by closing the border. Is that fair? I think so. Wonderful. Thank you. And I uh I do appreciate the work that you've done in this regard. I was previously the chairman of the subcommittee on Indian and insular insular affairs with the natural resources committee and safety and security on our reservations and for our tribal members has been one of our priorities, one of my priorities. And I very much appreciate the work that the FBI has done. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help you. And with that, I yield back. I will, ma'am.

Gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from Georgia is recognized. Thank you, um, Chairman, and thank you for coming in today, Mr. Patel. In the past few months, the country has experienced a a string of horrific high-profile attacks that have been motivated by racial hatred or political ideology. Shooter attacked the CDC headquarters, firing hundreds of rounds and killing a police officer. An arsonist set fire to the Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro's residence with the governor and his family actually inside. Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated earlier this year. Clark and Charlie Kirk was murdered last week. Bomb threats have been made against HBCUs and the DNC. And just the list goes on and on. I only have just a few minutes today, so I don't want to take a lot of time to go into all the countless and devastating violent crimes and incidents that have happened at our schools or on our streets and in our communities that have just been happening all year long. Mr. Mr. Patel, just yes or no. Is this type of political violence ever acceptable in your eyes? No.

I'm glad that we agree that these heinous acts designed to instill fear and division in our nation are never ever acceptable. Yet, each of these incidents has recently taken place under your watch. The FBI's website states that protecting the United States from terrorist acts is the FBI's number one priority, including from domestic terrorists. Is this still your number one priority? Domestic terrorism. Preventing domestic terrorism. Our number one priorities are protecting the homeland and international terrorism and crushing violent crime. And domestic terrorism sort of interlays between both of those. Okay. So, well then I'm glad that you're giving us the right answer, but unfortunately your actions kind of tell a different story. Earlier this year, you granted the ranks of the FBI's domestic terrorism operation section. This is the section of the FBI that is most directly responsible for addressing political violence in our country by preventing attacks from occurring and effectively responding to them if they do. The agents in this section are the ones who stopped an individual stockpiling weapons, who planned to attack schools and churches in Florida and seized bombs made by an ISIS sympathizer in New Orleans. And instead of ensuring that this section has all the resources that it needs at a time when its mission is critical, you fired its decorated veteran FBI agents who have served their country proudly under Republican and both Democratic presidents and you scrapped the tools that they develop to fight domestic terrorism, including the national domestic terrorism incident database. I mean, most of that is just not true. We have 1,700 current DT managed programs. We're up 300% in the amount of cases we brought against nihilistic, violent extremists, including 764, wishing to harm our children. The FBI and the men and women are getting after that problem set more than ever because I've unleashed them to do so. And in any situation that these tragic occurrences across the country are somehow singularly my fault or disgusting because that watershed goes down. Mr. Patel, I'm going to reclaim my time. Mr. They are not responsible for it. I'm happy to work with you to get them what they need.

Gentle lady controls the time. Unanimous consent request. She will state a request. Thank you very much. Into the record, an article from Reuters titled FBI scales back staffing tracking of domestic terrorism probe. Sources say. Thank you very much. Without objection. I appreciate that. So, Mr. Patel, and it isn't just the domestic terrorism operation section. Under your watch, agents are fully diverting their attention to these anti-immigrant and city takeover operations, leaving our children vulnerable to dangerous networks of online predators, both domestic and international. You pulled more than 120 FBI agents from their normal duties to operate sobriety checks and conduct traffic stops, exposing the FBI's fleet of unmarked cars, and thereby making it harder for the FBI to combat violent criminal gangs, foreign intelligence services, and drug traffickers in the process. That's simply not true. If we were not able to do two things at one time, how would we be in record amounts of time? 23,000 violent felons have been arrested belongs to the gentle more than twice as many as last gentle from Georgia. Thank you very much. And this request basically is uh it is an article from Reuters which quotes law enforcement officers familiar with agents who once covered child exploitation cases but now focus on immigration child exclusive. Thousands of agents diverted to Trump immigration track down.

Mr. Patel, in the short time I have left, your tenure as director of FBI has been somewhat problematic. Americans are left safe. Left definitely less uh less safe under your watch. You have gutted the FBI FBI's ability to keep safe uh from domestic terrorism. You have sent FBI agents to conduct traffic stops and round up hardworking immigrants who pose no danger to public safety. people, even President Trump, referred to as good, longtime workers. Your job is to protect and serve the American public. Spent your time protecting heinous individuals and using the FBI to serve as a political circus. You at times have appeared unequipped and I yield.

Gentle lady yields back. May I respond? Sure can. Simply put, what is it? Are we failing? If we're failing, how are we arresting 23,000 violent felons, twice as many as this time last year? Are we failing? Because if we're failing, how are we seizing 1500 kilograms of meth, 25% increase from last year? Are we failing because we captured four top 10 FBI most wanted from around the world in 7 months? That's more than the entirety of the last administration. Are we failing because we put 1500 child predators in prison? Are we failing because we dismantled 300 human trafficking networks? Which is it? You don't like me? That's fine. But don't you dare disparage the men and women of the FBI that are producing record results in historic fashion to protect this country. They are kicking ass for America and they're going to continue to do so.

And we appreciate your leadership. The gentle lady from Florida is recognized. When I was home recently, I met with the agents leading the Tampa office of the FBI and I saw what they're focused on in my community. stopping drug traffickers, rescuing children from exploitation, fighting cyber crime, protecting us from acts of terrorism, foreign and domestic. And I know from my time as a federal prosecutor and a judge that this work by the bureau doesn't make headlines, but it is happening every single day. At the top, accountability is necessary. Transparency is critical. But today, we've seen an effort not just to diminish, but to distort the work of Director Patel and the agents he leads. If we really care about transparency and about truth, then what we owe to the American people is this reality that thousands of dedicated professionals at the FBI wake up every single day thinking not about themselves but about this country and keeping every single one of us and our children safe from harm. And Director Patel, I would like to hear from you the facts about what the FBI is doing and your efforts to fight crime.

Director Patel, isn't it correct that since January 20th, 2025, the FBI has made over 25,000 immigration related arrests, including 350 members of Train Daywa and 195 members of MS-13? Those numbers are accurate. The trend raw numbers are up over 350% from the year before. And during that same period, hasn't the FBI seized over 66,000 kilos of cocaine, 6,000 kilos of meth, and 500 kilos of fentanyl? Uh, not to be nitpicky, but it's 89,000 kilos of cocaine and 7,300 kg of meth. And isn't it also true that the FBI Tampa division's Panama Extress Strike Force specifically seized nearly 67,000 kilos of cocaine valued at more than $1.6 billion dollar from illicit maritime vessels. One of our best operations out of the port of Tampa and I was down there in South Florida when Panax did their work.

Director Patel, since October 7th, 2023 Hamas attack, the FBI has been a co-leader of the joint task force October 7th. Isn't it correct that this task force is actively working to bring justice for victims and to prevent terrorist infiltration at our borders? Yes, ma'am. Since January 20th, hasn't the FBI arrested 59 foreign intelligence operatives for spying or smuggling dangerous material into the United States? Yes, we have. And that's on track to be more than 25% than ever before. And the FBI has also been leading operations against major cyber threat actors, including those from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Isn't that right? A 17% increase from year to date last year.

Director Patel, the FBI's child exploitation task forces continue to investigate predators who target children online and across our communities. How significant is that threat today? And what results have you seen under your tenure in bringing these offenders to justice? We have under Operation Grey Skull dismantled dark web units that are operating online, not just in the United States, but across uh the world to do our children harm. We have taken into custody more suspects than ever before on those who seek to harm our children. That is what the men and women of the FBI do. And that's what they're going to continue to do. Those are the real results when you let good cops be cops and when you let us get on these platforms and expose them to the public and show them the harms of these predators on these online gaming systems and social media systems. And we need more help from Congress to allow us more authorities to do that work.

The FBI laboratory manages the combined DNA index system or CODIS which compares over 25 million DNA profiles and aids more than 125 investigations each day. Director Patel, why is this important to law enforcement nationwide? All of law enforcement relies on our CODIS operation out of West Virginia and all and what that does is allow 19,000 agencies to come in and say, "Hey, does this guy have a criminal history? Hey, is this an illegal firearm? Do we have a DNA hit like we did in these recent um um assassinations? That's what the FBI brings to bear because local and state law enforcement agencies don't have that capability and we're doing it 24/7 365. CODIS does not close for one minute.

In your testimony, you noted that the FBI has ongoing counter intelligence investigations into China, Iran, and Russia across all 55 field offices. Why is it essential to maintain that scope of coverage? And what success can you point to in disrupting nation state actors? Our biggest threats involving nation state actors are the PRC, Russia, and China. And they are up 33%, 83% and 60% respectively in arrest alone this year. Those nation state actors wish to do harm in our infrastructure, our critical infrastructure system, our energy, our water supply, and also go after and target individuals and senior citizens and take their money through online pig butchering schemes which we've exposed in Cambodia by way of the CCP. This is groundbreaking work that the American public should be seeing that their FBI is doing and I'm happy to have the opportunity to report on it. Thank you, Director Patel. I yield back.

Gentle yields back. The gentle lady from Mr. Chairman, I have a couple unanimous consent. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. In response to Mr. Mattel's making the remarks that um that maybe our colleagues are disparaging the men and women of the FBI, I'd like to intro into the record three unanimous consent requests. One is uh entitled FBI is using polygraphs to test a fo uh officials loyalty. Uh the second is Cash Patel knowingly broke law when firing top officials lawsuit alleges published by NBC. And the third is FBI forces out more leaders including ex-director who fought Trump demand for January 6 agents names. Without objection.

Gentle lady from Vermont's recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. Director Patel thank you for being with us today. Appreciate your time. Uh, let me say at the top, political violence should have no place in this country. And I strongly, unequivocally condemn the killing of Charlie Kirk last week. And this is exactly the kind of case that warrants a swift and thorough investigation by the FBI. What shouldn't be happening, however, is this administration's seeming attempt to exploit Mr. Kirk's death within minutes of this horrible, horrible assassination, dividing us even further without knowing enough about the killer's complicated, confused political ideology and the extent of his motivation. And this week, Vice President Vance claimed that this is quote an extremely destructive movement of left-wing extremism and said that quote, "It's part of the reason why Charlie was killed." He pledged to go after organizations on the left. But Director Patel, it was just three months ago that Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota House Speaker, and her husband Mark were shot to death in their home in the middle of the night by a self-identified right-wing extremist and Trump supporter. When that assassination happened, the FBI released a written statement denouncing the killings and pledging to hold the killer accountable. And I thank the bureau for that. It was clear, concise, to the point. But when you compare that statement to the over 50 mentions of the Charlie Kirk killing and just four for the Hortman's on accounts affiliated with the FBI in your personal account, it appears to many Americans that you're valuing some lives more than others. And that's painful. And this is what I'm hearing from my constituents. So, I just want to convey that to you. And the vice president didn't even call on right-wing organizations to tone down their rhetoric after that horrific killing in Minnesota. And he never once spoke about dismantling conservative institutions. This week, when the president was asked by a reporter about Speaker Hortman, he claimed he didn't even know who she was. One of the most high profile assassinations of an elected official in recent memory, and the president claims to know nothing about it, hasn't even heard of it. was absolutely devastating for her colleagues and for her family and I think we all can agree in this room that we have to stop this political violence. So my first question to you is director Patel, what is your plan as director of the FBI to turn down the temperature especially in light of the fact that it seems like members of the administration um are reacting to political violence based on party affiliation. What's your plan? I can only speak for myself and the other guy and what we are doing is I think I mentioned it earlier we're following the money because whatever attack you are describing and they are all despicable equally so people need money to operate people need money to conduct these attacks to conduct these invest in investigations and so what we are doing is finding the people that supported this infrastructure system because even when you say there's a lone quote unquote lone wolf actor He's not truly a lone wolf actor. Something happened along the way. I agree. And so can I just just because we have such little time, are you making commitment right now to follow where the evidence goes in investigating whether it's violence on the left or the right? Because over the last 10 years, when you look at the ideology, I want to follow up on what my colleague from California said. When you look at the data, you look at the Anti-Defamation League data, 96% of ideological motivated killings were committed by the right-wing. Um when you look at the Institute of Justice report that she uh cited, it's five times the number that um five times the number of far-left extremist incidents are perpetrated by far right. And it's been reported, and she mentioned this, that as of September 12th, 2025, just 2 days after Charlie Kirk's killing, that the DOJ removed that report from the DOJ website. That's why Americans are concerned that there seems to be a separate system of justice that if you are a Republican that and you are attacked, you will get the full weight and authority of the FBI in this administration. But if you are somebody serving in the Minnesota state legislature and you are assassinated in your home that the response is different. And I think to ignore the threats from the right or try to do a both end when there are multiple instances when it's overwhelmingly coming from the right. This is a disservice because Americans want to know that whoever they are whatever their political affiliation that the response is going to be the same and it is going to be done with the same diligence. And I'm wondering if you will commit to me right now that you will be a voice right now standing up to those voices in the administration that are adding adding to the violent rhetoric right now. That's what I'm asking you. Will you commit to this time? The gentle lady's time has expired. The gentleman can respond. My voice will be through the investigations that the FBI conducts and we will conduct them all lawfully and equally. Can we expect in the future that your your tweets in related to one killing will be expired will be the same level of concern.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized. Thank you, sir. Director Patel, thank you for being here today and most importantly, thank you for restoring trust and faith in the FBI, which has been severely eroded under the Biden administration. Thank you for your service and your continued service in this capacity. On April 7th, 2025, Charlie posted on X, "As assassination culture is spreading from the left. 48% of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. 55% say the same about Donald Trump. In California, activists are naming ballot measures after Luigi Man. The left is being whipped into a violent frenzy and setback. Whether losing an election or losing a court case justifies a maximally violent response. End quote. And unfortunately for Charlie, that reaction also came when they couldn't win a debate on a college campus. You cannot be intellectually honest and say that this problem is on both sides. It's not just what happened to President Trump. It's also what just happened to Charlie. We've gotten to a point in America where violence is encouraged. When you have a former president of the United States that opens up his campaign in 2019, that's Joe Biden, by saying that his opponent is a quote existential threat to this country. Houston, we have a problem. People that you disagree with are not existential threats. They are not Nazis. They are not fascist. They are not racist. They are not deplorable. They are not irredeemable. They are your fellow Americans who have a different perspective on how government should want should run and what government should look like. Whether or not we should have strong sovereign borders. Whether or not we should have safe communities. Whether or not we should have places to worship our God and not worry about being shot. Whether or not we live in communities and cities that are not overwhelmed by drugs and crime. Whether or not we have two genders and whether or not we have common sense in our policies and our values. And people that believe these things are not existential threats. I happen to be one of these people that believes all of the above. And as someone that served this country in combat, I can assure you I am not an existential threat to this country because I swore to protect her. Also want to point out, how many cities have you seen burned to the ground since Charlie Kirk's death? Zero. No summer of love, no riots, no nothing, no looting, no killing, none. We simply gathered and prayed for his soul, his family, and this country because that's exactly what we represent. And while we might be angry, this righteous anger will carry on Charlie's message legacy. I want everybody to know something very simple. Charlie is not dead because of what he said. He is dead because people listened. My time is limited. So I have a few questions for you, sir. And again, thank you very much for being here. I really appreciate your time and your service. Um, in your experience in the FBI, have you noticed a precipitous rise in political violence and other associated crimes that you have been investigating so far this year? And if so, is this trend in motive left-wing or right-wing violence? I could always speak generally, sir. There is too much political violence and it has been a precipitate rise on on on too many fronts. How do we solve this? We solve this by giving the FBI more authorities to go into and work with the private sector. There are too many online platforms. There are too many social media platforms. There are too many gaming platforms. There are too many places for people from America and around the world to get together without their parents knowing anything about it, without their school teachers knowing anything about it and infection infesting the minds of our children and infecting them with radical ideology and with that is the root cause of these problems and we must tackle it. It is not a 1950s America anymore. In 2025, the cyberspace needs to be tackled. Thank you.

Switching gears. When your pred when your predecessor sat right there in that seat a couple years last year in a committee hearing, I asked him a very detailed question about Matthew Thomas Krooks, the shooter responsible for the assassination attempt on President Trump's life. I did get an answer from Chris Ray that day and I submitted written questions to the FBI and into the record of this committee and I'm going to resubmit those questions today because I think we are still awaiting answers to those questions. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit some for the record, please. I'd like to ask you, sir, and the FBI under your leadership, would you please respond to these questions and can you commit to doing that? As soon as the trial is over. Thank you very much. I will end with this. Charlie Kirk is not dead because of what he said. Charlie Kirk is dead because people listened. He set up a tent that said, "Prove me wrong." And exercise his First Amendment right. That's all he did. and we will continue to do so in this country in order to preserve this constitutional republic. With that, I yield back.

Thank you, gentlemen. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Florida is recognized. U Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um before I begin, I want to caution my colleagues on, you know, one-sided violence in this country. We just heard that there were no riots on the right. We're we're literally sitting in the building where there was a giant riot by supporters of the president, the right. We also heard that only leftists, okay, have said that Trump is a Nazi. In 2016, the current vice president of the United States said Trump is either a cynical or he's America's Hitler. And so this is the problem. Like I don't want to have to say this garbage, but you want me to sit here and get painted with one brush the whole left? No. No. There are extremes on the left and there are extremes on the right and we collectively should tackle that. But to come here and just look at us and say we all support what's going on in the extremes is why we can't solve anything in this building. director, let me say first, thank you for for being here and uh my condolences on the loss uh of your friend. Um, and I'm happy to hear that you want to do more on the social media platforms. Okay, it's crazy what's going on on the social media platforms. There are so many conspiracy theories on what's going on with Charlie Kirk. Israel assassinated him, right? There are conspiracy theories about your personal social life all day. It is totally rampant. Big names on the right. Candace Owens, right? Talking about how the what's been released as far as the dialogue between the perpetrator and his roommate is manufactured by the FBI, manufactured by the administration. It is totally rampant. Allowing foreign governments to just perpetrate these platforms, all of these bots all of the time to weaponize Americans. You see what's going on here? This is a byproduct of all of that. What's going on in the streets is a byproduct of all of that. What's happening is you see people celebrate Luigi Manion is a byproduct of all of that. And so if we want to do something, then we should talk about section 230. We should talk about how we're going to make sure that we don't let foreign governments poison our children's mind. And so I will work with you on that, director. I'll work with you on 230 any day. No problem. So now that was the good part. I I want to take your attention back a second. Okay. Breaking news. Cash Patel is nominated to be the FBI director. Dan Bonino is nominated to be the number two at the FBI. Maga celebrates, rejoices, bells are ringing out. The team, Patel, Banino 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 says there's no list. Oh no, no phase two. Phase two binders never happen. 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 the index has been released and the number of people involved in that trafficking operation were charged um in 2018. Other than Epstein and Gelain Maxwell, your testimony in the Senate and 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 the other names that weren't 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 to 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? Will you 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 signal. 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. U Oh, oh, am I over? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your your gentleman's time is expired.

Chairman, I'll recognize the gentleman from California. Uh, Director Patel, as you know, my uh uh state California is uh home to the worst public infrastructure failure in US history. uh known as California uh high-speed rail, although the name is probably a uh misnomer. Uh earlier uh this year, I joined uh your counterpart uh at the Department of Transportation, Sean Duffy, uh doing a compliance review of the federal money the state has received. And the outcome was that the state has not complied with the terms of its billions of dollars in funding because it hasn't actually built anything. And so that federal funding uh has now been cut off. But uh a lot of us in California still have questions as to where all the money went. We're 17 years in to this project uh and absolutely nothing has been built. Not a single uh bit of track has been laid. There are no stations. There are no passengers. Uh and the uh the plan initially was to have the whole thing LA to San Francisco done uh by 2020 at a cost of $33 billion. Uh yet here we are in 2025, nothing has been built. And according to the New York Times, not the track, the project won't even be completed this century. And the total cost is now estimated to be over 130 billion. So I just wanted to ask you, do you think this is something that bears scrutiny or can you confirm whether there's any kind of investigation going on at the FBI? The FBI certainly can't investigate incompetence, but the FBI certainly can investigate and does investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. And so if we have any information that indicates that that happened in this situation or anything else, we'll look at it. Thank you very much.

Um we've also uh you know been talking some today about uh the issues that occurred at the border during the Biden administration. Uh and uh you might not agree with uh your predecessor uh on everything, but you probably would agree with some of the statements he made in testimony before this and other committees uh raising alarms uh about uh the risk of terrorism from illegal border crossings. Uh since becoming director, uh have you gotten uh some insight into uh how well calibrated those warnings were and what is the status of that risk now? Um since becoming director, there's been a sharp decrease of border crossings for known or suspected terrorists from the southern border. But unfortunately, there has been a sharp increase of known or suspected terrorists entering through our northern border. And so what I'm trying to do is work with our northern border states and our inter agency to tackle that problem. but it is an absolutely massive border um that can't physically be sealed. So, we are going to have to get um creative and put more resources into that. And in a in a similar vein, uh there were over 500,000 unaccompanied children uh that crossed the southern border during the Biden administration. Um as we know, uh many were uh trafficked either through forced labor or or sex trafficking. Uh do you have any insight into as to what the scale of that problem was and how have things changed over the last several months other than what you outlined in terms of how it was described? I don't have any additional details in terms of how many people are being trafficked into this country especially um unaccompanied missing children. That number has drastically reduced because the coyotes that smuggle these children uh for their criminal activity are the same ones that smuggle in narcotics or the same ones that traffic older women. They're all interconnected and because of the sealing of the southern border by this administration that has come to a near halt. That is a very important point that we have seen far fewer victims of human trafficking uh because we've finally prioritized border security. Uh and by the way, you have children who are getting rescued because of the immigration enforcement activities that unfortunately some politicians uh in my state are trying to stop, thereby stopping those kids uh from getting rescued.

Uh we've seen uh of course a substantial reduction in crime here in Washington DC since the FBI and the National Guard got involved. Um I'm kind of asking you to state the obvious here. Uh but what is the mechanism there? Uh why have we seen a reduction of crime when DC has had such a huge crime problem for years and then almost overnight we see such a big difference? Because of the dedication and resources from President Trump's administration to utilize all federal, state, and local assets in a heavily crimeridden area. I mean, if we did not have a crimeridden area, then homicides, carjackings, and um uh gun violence would not be dropping by 40, 50, 60%. And when you allow the police, the MPD to work with federal authorities and allow the National Guard to set up your perimeter, this is what you can do in a few short weeks. And we at the FBI under Operation Summer Heat have set those phase 01 operations in motion four months ago, quietly at the direction of President Trump. So we are scattered across

Cities across this country doing just that. And but we're going to need more help to complete the job.

Yeah, in too many places in this country, crime has just been treated as sort of a norm that this is the way things have have to be. What's happened in DC shows that is not the case if we have the right policies and the right priorities.

Uh, finally, you know, this is tragically the second time uh in as many years that we've had an FBI director here following either an assassination or a assassination uh attempt. And so since uh there's been some time now since uh from the attempted assassination on President Trump at Butler, uh would you say that the public's understanding of what took place on that day uh is fairly consistent with all of the facts as you know them or do you believe there's still material facts that uh have not been made public or are not fully uh understood by the public?

No, I think it's fairly consistent. Thank you. I yield. Gentleman yields back to Lady from Texas recognized.

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 consider 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 lad is 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 the 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 are 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. And uh we appreciate your service. We appreciate the results speak for themselves, I think, pretty plainly, and your commitment not only to results, but to to transparency. So, we we do appreciate that.

Uh, director, who is John Durham? Uh, he was appoint a former federal prosecutor, United States attorney and ultimately appointed uh special counsel in the first Trump administration. Correct. And and what what there was a a a document that he released in his findings called the Durham report. What were what was the Durham report briefly and what were the findings very briefly?

It was every special counsel that's appointed produces a report to the attorney general. Special counsel's Durham report largely focused on Crossfire Hurricane and included extensive summary findings in classified and and unclassified manner and we released the classified version finally declassifying it for the American public in this committee. Correct. And you released that in July of this year? I think so. Yes, sir. Uh, isn't it true that in the in the UNC the classified Durham annex as it's referred to uh that in 2016 the Obama administration obtained intelligence information from a source contained in two separate memoranda one in January of 2016 and one in March. Uh the two memoranda described confidential conversations between DNC chair Debbie Washerman Schultz and two individuals from the Soros Open Society Foundation. Isn't that true?

As written in the report, I'll let it speak for itself. In in the Durham annex in January of 2016, uh the memorandum noted in part that President Barack Obama intended to scuttle the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server and mishandling of highly classified information during her time as Secretary of State. Isn't that found in the report? I believe so. Okay. Uh, isn't it also found in the report that in March of 2016, the memorandum also included references to the same Obama effort to shut down the Clinton investigation, but additionally outlined a plan to falsely connect Trump to Russia. Isn't that in the Durham annex? I think it's in more than the Durham report, but yes. U, the memo also stated in part that quote, "The Democrat party's opposition is focused on discrediting Trump among other things. Uh the Clinton staff with the support from special services is preparing scandalous revel revelations of business connections between Trump and the Russian mafia." Isn't that also found in the now unclassified Durham annex? I believe so, sir. According to the Durham annex, uh based on analysis and uh translation of the intelligence, FBI analysts believed that special services could either mean the FBI or CIA uh or the Trump dossier author Christopher Steel. Isn't that in the Durham annex? I believe so, sir. When the Obama administration received intelligence in March of 2018, Fusion GPS was preparing open-source opposition research regarding purported ties between Trump and Russians. The research was paid uh by the Clinton's campaign and the DNC. Isn't that open source? And also in the Durham annex, I believe both. Okay. And so in in uh also in the Durham annex, which I found interesting, was the uh potential campaign plan uh was shared with high-ranking career officials at DOJ. Isn't that in the Durham annex? I believe so, sir. The Durm annex uh describes that in July of 2016 uh emails allegedly between Leonard uh Bernardo, senior vice president of George Soros's Open Society Foundation, uh concluded um or uh included data providing specificity on the Clinton plan in an attempt to smear Donald Trump by falsely linking him to Russia. Isn't that in the Durham report? I believe so. And so briefly, this additional evidence that you've uh unclassified and and released to the American public, what does that purport to show or or augment about the Durham report uh that you can share with the American people? Put simply, that the FBI was weaponized against a political campaign? Yes, sir. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back the I have UC's. Gentle lady from Texas is recognized for unanimous consent.

Yes. Um first one is Russia's ghostriter hacker group takes aim at German election. This is from Politico. Objection. The next one is director of um national intelligence 30 days until election 2024 which specifically states that our assessments about activities and goals of Russia, Iran, and China are unchanged from earlier election um security updates and that they were meddling without objection. And I've got three more. The last three are that um how Russia is using artificial intelligence to interfere in elections. Moscow's attempts to interfere in US and other elections are nothing new though their tactics and strategy are constantly evolving. Objection. The next one is Russian interference coming soon to an election near you. Russia pursues a systemic strategy of undermining elections and influencing public opinion in the West, EU, and NATO countries must recognize that Moscow often acts through agents within their own borders and build resilience to such interference. And what's the source? This one is carnegie endowment.org. Okay, without objection. Thank you.

The gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Director Patel, I'm glad that I'm going a little out of order here because I'm going to pursue some of the things that you were just talking to Mr. Fry about and remind you about your confirmation hearing. At your confirmation hearing in January, you said under oath, and I quote, "There will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no uh ret retributive actions taken by the FBI should I be confirmed." And in your written response to the Senate questionnaire, you said, I quote, "Personnel decisions shall be based on performance and adherence to the law, and every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for case assignments." So, I want to just go through a couple scenarios with you to get a sense of whether you think these are examples of politization of the FBI or making decisions based on the performance and adherence to the law. So first question, would hiring FBI agents, analysts, and supervisors from only one political party being politicization of the FBI or making personnel decisions based on performance and adherence to the law?

We don't ask FBI people applicants where their political parties are. Uh uh Mr. Patel, do you ask FBI applicants who they voted for? We the FBI does not um are you aware that in the lawsuit um that Mr. Driscoll filed against you and the FBI he was asked who he voted for since that lawsuit has been filed and it's on lowing litigation. I'm not able to comment. Well, but it also means that you just said that what happened in his situation didn't happen. So we will go on to the next question. Let me ask you an even easier one. Does firing agents for working on the cases that they were assigned to and that the president didn't like is that politization of the FBI or making personnel decisions based on performance and adherence to the law?

The FBI doesn't terminate anyone based on case assignments alone. Has the FBI ever been sued by somebody who felt that they were terminated based on case assignments in the entire history of the FBI? I'm sure they have. No, since your tenure, I'm sure there's ongoing litigation. Yes. In fact, there is ongoing litigation. And in fact, people have been asked who they voted for. And in fact, you are running an FBI for the president of the United States rather than the people of the United States because my questions were not hypotheticals. They are the things you have done during your tenure. And according to a lawsuit filed last week by long-term FBI agents, you fired former acting director Brian Driscoll. He had served with the bureau for nearly 20 years, earned a medal of honor, medal medal of valor for bravery during the dangerous ISIS raid, and had a wealth of crisis response experience and led the FBI's critical incident response group. When the Trump administrations interviewed Mr. Driscoll for that role, they interrogated him about his political leanings and who he voted for in the last five elections. Questions Mr. Driscoll refused to answer because those types of questions impermissibly politicized the FBI. You also fired Steve Jensen, who served the FBI for nearly two decades and ran critical terrorism, counter intelligence, and organized crime operations, whom you you once described as embodying what the American public demands of the FBI. But he was fired be took because he took part in investigating crimes committed on January 6th. And Trump's MAGA base lambasted you online for keeping him at the FBI. So he's no longer at the FBI. You also fired a decorated combat veteran with decades of experience in the bureau, Special Agent Walter Jardia, because he worked on the investigation into the Russian interference and the 2016 presidential election and helped investigate Trump's ally, Peter Navaro. Director Patel, it is very clear that you have flunked your own test. You've put saving your job, which I actually believe you were being honest about during your confirmation hearings, over doing what's right for the FBI and the American people. That is not adherence to the law. Thank you, and I yield back. Time of the gentle ladies expired.

Uh the chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Patel, it's great to have this opportunity. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your service. And I've got to say, one of the most disheartening components of the previous administration when I was working with law local law enforcement all over the state of North Carolina, all over the country, people rightfully did not really care about the inner work. 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 8:00 p.m. 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 to 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. Um, 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 seven 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 Abbegate 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. Ask 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 24/7, 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 fentinyl 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. a 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 fentinol producers, but the fentinol 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 fentinyl 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 arrest 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 nest 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 it 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. Aassa allowed Mr. Epstein to enter into a plea agreement where he served weekend jails for trafficking minor women. He also was allowed to relieve 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 gentleman from California Mr. Director, delighted to have you here. You are a breath of fresh air. As you outlined, and I won't repeat it, uh the accomplishments you did so with the same resources as your predecessor roughly. Is that correct?

I believe so. Yes. And so how much of that uh has to do with taking people out of the backside of the FBI and moving them into the field into doing the job for which we primarily pay the FBI.

Well, thank you for doing that. and and you know it's it's perhaps the hardest thing for a bureaucrat to do is to lower the headcount around them that support them. And I appreciate your willingness to do it different than your predecessor. You you a lot of what you you uh covered earlier was the find the discovery and then the prosecution that is done by the DOJ. But I want to talk a little bit about the prevent side on the Charlie assassination. Sir, no no on all of these. Okay. Okay, for example, and I'll bring it up before the Democrats bring it up, January 6th. January 6th, we now know because of your find that in fact there were people involved who were not just observers but participants who in fact it's been alleged and I I personally believe in fact were part of promoting perhaps even uh the one woman who died encouraging her to walk through a door that led to her death. When you see that kind of activity and you know it was done under predecessors with full knowledge whether it's January 6th where embedded people cross the line or any other activity uh including obviously the the the Russian hoax that we're now dealing with up in you know front and center. My question to you is what can you or others do to prevent it from occurring again? Not on your watch but on future watches. How can we know that this won't happen again the moment you leave the FBI?

It's simple. What I'm doing through our leadership cadre is having FBI agents do what they were trained to do, not what they were not trained to do, not put them in situations that both harm them and the public. We're also utilizing our sort networks and prioritizing the threat structure to go after the narot traffickers, the counterterrorism people, the counter intelligence threats, and the cyber threats. That's what they were trained to do and that's what we're letting them do. One major question I have after decades of doing this on each on the our side of it both the chairman myself and others both at oversight and here have seen that the FBI and the department of justice hide behind non-stutory practices. Now you've changed the interpretation of many of those practices. That's why we're getting the discovery that was previously withheld. How do we work together to make sure that we never again have false walls, non-stutory walls that say the Department of Justice has a has a prohibition about giving quote, "You fill in the blank." That has led to the chairman not seeing anything until you took over.

I'm wedded to aggressive constitutional oversight. Having been a House Congressional Staffer, I know that is an important part of securing our democracy. And the way we make it an everlasting enduring process is by showing the American people the results of what we are doing and the important work of this committee and putting it out to them so they can see government waste, fraud, and abuse and then they can demand from our constituents and our electors that they want this process to continue. Last major question here. Some things are so sensitive that we both would agree they cannot be made public. Will you commit to this committee when it is too sensitive to dis to disclose that you would at least make it available for inc camera review by the chairman and ranking members or others designated?

I have done that and I will continue to do that. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a breath of fresh air. This is the beginning of what we need. But my questions today uh for the director are ones in which I believe that we do need to codify by agreement or by statute if necessary the kind of openness and transparency that we're seeing from this administration, the kind of discovery that's allowing us to do our oversight pro properly. And I would hope that uh that that be the followup to this al obviously along with the attorney general and I yield back my 4 seconds. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Director Patel. In the wake of the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump said, uh, quote, "Violence and murder are the tragic consequences of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and desable way possible." Close quote. I would note for the record that Donald Trump has famously dis demonized practically every person he has ever disagreed with and therefore using his own logic he has put their lives at risk. I should know about two weeks ago when I announced my my decision not to go when I announced my my decision not to seek re-election many people on both sides of the aisle including the chairman offered me well wishes and thanked me for my service. Donald Trump, on the other hand, took the true social to call me a quote psychopathic nut job, among other things. Yesterday, I received a threatening note filled with anti-semitic comments and hateful attacks that mimic some of the same language used by the president. I am sure many of us on this committee face similar threats every day. We have seen political assaults on both the left and the right. The attack on Charlie Kirk, the attempted assassination of the president, the murder of the Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House, the assault on Paul Pelosi, and the attack on the capital on January 6, for example. Director Patel, do you agree that there is political violence from both the left and the right?

There is too much political violence. You agree, yes or no, that there's violence? There is too much political violence based on ideologies from either side. Do you from either side? Okay. Are you aware of the study by the Kato Institute, a well-known conservative group that found that 69% of the violence is from the right?

I'm not familiar with that study. You're not familiar? Okay. I I I would commend it to you. Are you aware the administration's threatened to use violence as an excuse to crack down on liberty and freedom of speech?

Say that again. I'm sorry. Are you aware the administration has used has threatened to use violence as an excuse to crack down on liberty and freedom of speech? Nobody at the FBI is doing that. I didn't ask you about the FBI. I said the administration. I speak for the FBI. I would like to enter the record an article from today's New York Times titled Trump invokes Kirk's killing and justifiing uh measures to silence opponents. In the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing, President Trump and his allies have laid out a broad plan to target liberal groups, monitor speech, revoke visas, and designate certain groups as domestic terrorists. Ask unanimous consent to insert this into the record. Thank you. Politicizing the murder of Charlie King to go after free speech is not a legacy I believe Charlie King would have wanted.

Moving on, I want to address another topic. The FBI has traditionally played a key role in prosecuting public officials for corruption. But I fear that at a time when the president is accepting planes from Qatar for his post-presidential personal use, issuing pardons to major donors, and personally profiting from the office of the presidency, the FBI may be abandoning its commitment to investigating public corruption. Since its creation in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the public integrity section has been one of the crown jewels of the Department of Justice, investigating and prosecuting corruption among the nation's public officials and acting as a key safeguard against politicized prosecutions. This section's work has been supported by an elite squad in the FBI devoted specifically to rooting out corruption. But according to reports, the public integrity section has now been decimated and the FBI's public corruption squad has been dismantled. I would like to submit for the record a New York Times article entitled FBI dismantles elite public corruption squad. I ask unanimous consent. Thank you. These actions are an invitation to corrupt politicians to break the law since they know that the government is asleep at the switch. Last month, Senator Warren and I along with dozens of other members of Congress wrote to you and Attorney General Bondi expressing grave concern over your decision to effectively legalize corruption and politicize prosecutions. And he ask unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record. Thank you. I don't have time today to walk through all your questions, all of our questions and concerns, but will you commit to answering this letter in short order so that we can understand what factors led to this decision and how it has impacted the ability to hold corrupt officials accountable?

I will review I will review your letter with my team and respond as soon as you will respond. Thank you. I yield back uh the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, director, for being here. I appreciate the the change in uh the FBI and the tone since you've been there. Um we heard the ranking member, however, describe uh the FBI under your leadership as being resorting to political enforcement and you personally as being paranoid. I would just suggest that perhaps that is the projections of the ranking member himself and not you, sir. Um, I want to refer to something that was said yesterday in yesterday's hearing by um, Senator Grassley. Uh, he said, "It's well understood that your predecessor left you an FBI infected with politics. At your nomination hearing, he gave you records uh, uh, made public records about whistleblowers regarding something called Artic Frost." Artic Frost was the FBI case opened and approved by anti-Trump FBI agent Theebolt. and Artic Frost became Jack Smith's elector case. The new records show that Artic Frost was much broader than just an electoral matter. In fact, it was expanded to Republican organizations. Some examples of the groups that the Ray FBI sought to place under political investigation included the Republican National Committee, Republican Attorneys General's Association, and Trump political groups. In total, 92 Republican targets, including Republican groups, Republican linked individuals, were placed under the investigative scope of Artic Frost. On that political list for investigation was one of Charlie Kirk's groups, Turning Point USA. In other words, Artic Frost wasn't just a case to politically investigate Trump. It was the vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors could achieve their partisan ends and improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus. I'd ask that, Mr. Chairman, that that document be administered. Without objection. So, um I I know that this may be under current investigation, but I wish to ask specific questions about this for just a moment. What search tools were used in Arctic Frost to view private communications of targets?

I believe uh the traditional search tools, search warrants, lawful service of process and the and the um tools that the FBI has in our infrastructure systems, cyber security systems, and counter intelligence systems. But generally speaking, if I may, I want to use this to highlight the fact that I'm continuing my promise to work with Congress to produce documents simultaneously and also conduct ongoing investigations. I'm giving you as much as I can and I'll give you more when I can. Thank you. Uh, another question regarding that is were there any directives from the Biden White House concerning the Arctic Frost investigation? Were there any sorry communicate uh directives or communications from the Biden White House itself uh concerning the Arctic Frost investigation?

I'll just rely on what was turned over to date, sir. Okay. So, I I want to I want to add here um the search warrants that were used included the seizing of a US member of Congress his phone. I think we all know who that was and how that was taken away and used for political purposes. M Mr. Chairman, Mr. Director. So, we'll leave that for a second and let's go over to um uh the the Charlie Kirk case for just a second. Let's let's emphasize this. Uh how many hours did it take from the assassination to the arrest of the assassin, Mr. Director?

33. That seems uh pretty swift and it was because of the the actual release of videos and photographs that you you directed to be released, sir. That's correct. And to put in perspective, the Boston bomber took 5 days and Luigi Manion took 5 days. Was the platform Discord forthright from the start with law enforcement about the shooters communications on its platform?

Discord the platform ownership has been working with our lawful process and we are obtaining materials from them on a rolling basis. Thank you. And um I want to get back here to uh article frost for just a second. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the um unclassified document from the FBI released uh to be admitted to the record. Objection. And a document uh from the Economic Times also to be admitted to the record. Objection. So, um, I'm going to give you the last 30 seconds. We could go on about the Epstein Epstein case. I've got a bunch about that, but I'm just going to let you, if you wish, to respond to either of the, uh, two vitriolic, um, questioning or statement from the Democrats.

The work of the FBI speaks for itself. It's on showcase here today. Anyone that wants to attack the FBI can attack me, but leave our leadership structure alone. When you have 23,000 violent felons arrested, twice as many as this time last year, the work speaks for itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. Appreciate your good work. Uh uh, Director Patel, yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Maryland's recognized.

Simple. Because of who's on that list? So, you finished that December 2023 interview with a challenge to the FBI and harsh words for Republicans in Congress for not getting the Epstein files out to the public. You can 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 FBI director each had complete authority to release Epstein's client list. You said Epstein's black book is under the quote direct control of the director of the FBI. Look at this clip. This is way off the topic, but who has Jeffrey Epstein's black book? Blackbook. FBI. But who that is that that I mean there's Oh, that's under direct 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 the FBI director. We have released more material than anyone else before. The Biden administration, 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, we're not going after child. Hang on. You said we're not going after child predators. 1,500 child predators arrested this year. 35% increase. 4,700 child victim. I'm going to claim 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 have you changed?

Everything 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, 7, and 8. And the search warrants from 2006, 7 and 8. That's what we're working with. Wait, 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 release. Which 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 law works? Wait, 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 and everything I have direct control over, we have gone to court. You have 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 we release, we're releasing. He'd like to complete his answer. You you began the sentence. Everything you have direct control over I and then you stopped 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'm I'm perfectly familiar with them. But how did we prosecute um Galileain Maxwell? She she was prosecuted with the investigatory material

That was collected from 2001 and 2005. Because of the nonprosecution 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. Stop that. I'm not blaming anybody other than you. You're not keeping your word. You said that you would release all of the materials on released more information on epste than I have. Has anyone much more Comey did much much more I'm excuse me. Much more has come out in the days since the American people in Congress have been demanding it. But it's coming out in dribbs 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 That's a tiny fraction of the material we're talking about. It is a tiny fraction. How do you know that? Have you seen everything? It's all misdirected.

The time that the gentleman has expired, the gentleman from California is recognized. Well, thank you, Mr. Director. Just to be clear, how many of the Epstein files were released in the four years of the Biden administration? Zero. And how many have you released? I I don't have the number, but it's got to be thousands of pages of stuff. I I was going to ask you uh to begin whether Americans are safer today than they were nine months ago, but you cited dramatic increases in criminal arrests since you've taken office, a dramatic decrease in crime that's resulted. Who would have thought that taking criminals off the streets would reduce the crime rate? But but uh somehow we have stumbled upon that that new truth. But it begs the question, what was the FBI doing during the four years of the Biden administration to to to to see that dramatic an increase in work under under your tenure? The simple answer is I'm letting good cops be cops. We're working with our state and local law enforcement. We're energizing our partnerships. We're bringing on more task force officers. When you have more cops in the streets, when you're using groundbased intelligence, when you're not weaponizing law enforcement and focusing on DC and focusing on the rest of America, this is what happens. It is not a significant mind shift in terms of how we maneuver the FBI. They've wanted to do this work since they signed up. We're just letting them.

And uh we we've seen many prominent Democrats oppose your efforts to restore law and order to the streets of our nation's capital. I mean, all of us here have seen a dramatic change for the better here in Washington, DC. Why are so many Democrats attacking you for that? Sir, Democrats have been attacking me for a decade, as is the fake news media. They didn't like the fact that I exposed the Russia gase host and the largest weaponization of the FBI DOJ in US history. We proved it to be true with congressional oversight. I'm wed to that congressional oversight and will continue to do that work.

Uh Christopher Ray repeatedly warned this committee that the Biden open borders policy had produced a significant increase in terrorist threats that he said kept him up at night. Um the particular concern he said was the 2 million gotaways that entered the country during the Biden administration. That's a an average of 41,000 every month. Uh what are the monthly gotaway numbers today? Sir, I'll have to get back to you on the exact gotaway numbers, but identifying that there are gotaways is step one. Going and manhunting them is step two, and that's what we're committing our resources to. Well, that's that's that's my next question is is what progress is administration made in apprehending and removing terrorist threats that came in during the Biden years. I think you're talking about if you're not, let me know known or suspected terrorists. And we've encountered almost zero at the southern border since the southern border has been sealed. But the problem that we are running into is our northern border. It's largely expansive. The enemy has adapted and we need more focus on the northern border to stop known or suspected terrorists from coming in from places like China, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan. And what can you tell us about the remaining threat posed by potential terrorist cells here in the United States? That the the terrorist threat that is continues to be posed by international terrorists here in the United States is one of my highest priorities. We are working through our intelligence community partners to identify those individuals and we've taken down numerous individuals in numerous rings across this country to neutralize that terrorist threat including in places like New York City, Los Angeles and I believe Dallas, Texas most recently.

How extensively did criminal cartels like Sinaloa, Haliscoco, New Generation, MS-13, Tendiarua and others infiltrate our country during the Biden administration? By the tens of thousands. Well, and what progress have you been making in combating their presence? I think the DHS is best to speak to that, but I think uh I can't remember the numbers of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals they found that came in illegally and the tens of thousands at associations, the criminal networks have all been deported. And that effort is being opposed every step of the way by Democratic leaders in our cities, some of our states, and right here in the Congress. Isn't that true? Well, we're just working where we can in every single city we can, and I welcome the opportunity to partner with Republicans or Democrats on fighting violent crime like we're doing.

Mr. Biggs asked about Arctic Frost. What else can you tell us about that and what we need to do to asssure that it never happens again? Continue the congressional oversight work that you're doing on Arctic Frost. Let me provide you with more documentation on Arctic Frost and also call in witnesses from the paperwork that we have given you. Uh you have that right and the American public deserves to hear what those people have to say. As for my ongoing investigation, there's not much I can say.

What um role did u the FBI play in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2024 election? Off the top of my memory, sir, um I believe the FBI um was in possession of verified information from that laptop and it was improperly publicized that they did not have information and masked it as Russian disinformation. We now know that was categorically false. I don't know why the FBI did that, when they did that, but we've released all the materials related to that. Thank you. Gentleman yields back.

The gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr. Coleman, 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 Gilain 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 your 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 th 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 you're 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 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 how. So, I was a fake one 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 order? 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 gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr. Coleman, 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 Gilain 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 your 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 th 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 you're 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 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 how. So, I was a fake one 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 order? 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 gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr. Coleman, 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 Gilain 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 your 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 th 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 you're 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 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 how. So, I was a fake one 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 order? 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.

Being able to put more criminals out on the streets that what we've seen. We've seen this in daily action. Are you familiar with the report that came out this last Monday from the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund?

I I'm not familiar with that. Sorry. So this report came out this past Monday and it said that a significant amount of the money flowing out of George Soros and other leftist organizations and funders has been funding DAs and prosecutors. And quote, "many of these DAs have never managed an office, prosecuted a criminal case, developed organizational policies in dozens of America's largest cities and counties." This report finds these progressive district attorneys have outsourced core parts of the American criminal justice system to activists and political donors, taking direction and advice on everything from staffing decisions and communication strategy organizations. It's a complex web of donors going in through these organizations to radical put radical DAs and prosecutors out there, putting criminals on the streets.

Does the FBI director agree that this exists and is a problem? I will accept the factual representation and if that exists, it is a problem. The organizations such as Tides, the Fair and Just Prosecution, Briner Center for Justice, Partnership for Safety and Justice, the Vera Institute of Justice, the amount of dollars flowing from George Soros through into these organizations and to the various prosecutors that have resulted in increased crime on our streets, including the brutal murder of the Ukrainian refugee in Charlotte. I bring that up because that is one component of the problem.

In addition, we have an organized effort targeting our border, the NGOs, the nonprofits in the deep pockets, the United Nations, charitable organizations, and a long list of over 250 organizations that the Center for Immigration Studies put out that lays out a complex web of organizations that were moving people into our country knowing that they're dangerous, knowing that they're criminal, associated with taxpayer dollars flowing through the United Nations. And donor dollars flowing through organizations, including ostensibly religious ones, putting these dangerous individuals on the street that resulted in fentanyl in our communities, that resulted in the death of Jocelyn Nungare, of hundreds, thousands even, as the director testified, 100,000 people dying from these narcotics every year. All of this in an organized effort, a complete effort by the radical left to use taxpayer dollars and these dollars to put people on our streets.

In addition, the extent to which we've seen now with the Southern Poverty Law Center and their hate map targeting, for example, the Family Research Council, where we had a shooting right here in DC over a decade ago, putting Charlie Kirk, putting a target on TPUSA, Antifa, other radical organizations that are very specifically organized and targeting conservatives and ordinary Americans. How about the organized effort to infiltrate our schools and advance a transgender agenda and advance a radical agenda? Perhaps one that we will see exposed further in the individual that actually shot Charlie Kirk. So here's my question. Will you, as the director, and are you, as the director, pursuing all legal channels to follow the truth wherever it may lead on this organized effort? One, and two, do you agree that Congress should take all action necessary to expose this web of dollars that are flowing to undermine our way of life? I got another minute in my time, then I'd like to hear from you on this topic broadly.

Uh, I'll keep it short. Um, investigatively speaking, we are doing the following. We are following the money. We are following the money in every organization and every person that is violating the federal code. And it doesn't matter what your background or ideology is. We are following the money. We are using legal process to follow that money, issuing subpoenas to follow that money, using grand juries to follow that money. And when we have results to recommend for prosecution to the Department of Justice, we will do that. And we will continue to publicize documents through Congress. Yes. When we make these findings, Mr. Chairman, I'd like unanimous consent to insert into the record "Outsourcing Justice" by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund that I alluded to before. I would ask unanimous consent to add a 2024 list provided by the Center for Immigration Studies on these United Nations and other affiliated groups that are responsible, over 250 of them, for moving individuals into our country in a coordinated effort. Um, I would like a unanimous consent to insert a letter that I sent that currently has 33 members of the United States House of Representatives have signed on it, calling for a special select committee to pursue the organized effort from the radical left to target our way of life and undermine our security by putting criminals on the street and having our borders being wide open and putting us in danger. Um, and with that, I would yield back.

Without objection, the gentleman yields back. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of unanimous consent requests. Uh, one is uh a uh letter from to Senator Tom Cotton uh dated last year urging the US to quote, "ensure that data from US companies is not harvested by the Chinese Communist Party through the purchase of Shein software and technology." Objection. And uh also a uh a um statement by uh Marco Rubio, then Senator Marco Rubio, which warned our UA our UK allies about quote, "Shein's deep ties to the People's Republic of China." Without objection. Also, uh a um "Crime is Down in 2025. Trump Doesn't Deserve Credit," which demonstrates that the crime rates have been decreasing since 2023, which was published by the Vera Institute. Also a um unanimous consent request uh to uh enter into the record an NPR report uh from July of 17, July of 2024, "GOP Vows to Make America Safe Again. Statistics Contradict Their Growing Crime Claim." Without objection. Also, a report uh out of the American Presidency Project dated January 17, 2025, "Record Low Crime During the Biden-Harris Administration." Without objection. Also, "Joe Biden is Correct That Violent Crime is Near a 50-Year Low," which was a uh Politifact publication of May 2024. And last but not least, a uh "FBI Releases 2024 Reported Crimes in the Nation Statistics." These are FBI statistics published uh on August 5th, 2025, which details decreases in murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery in 2024. Without objection.

Gentlemen, gentleman from KY's recognized for unanimous consent. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit uh two sets of documents. The first is a series of emails from the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. They are making FOIA requests to get their own FBI files and not having any success. So, um I want to bring attention to that by submitting that to the record. The second document that I want to submit to the record, uh for the record, I know we don't usually read these. This one's not readable. Uh, it's completely redacted, uh, for the most part, the first 50 pages. This is actually the search warrant that was served on James O'Keefe uh for a diary that he had already given to the government two months before. And as it turns out, there were no indictments here. Yet he still doesn't know why he was raided, and I think he deserves to know. So without objection. Thank you.

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California. Director, the first time you saw Donald Trump's name was in the Epstein files. Did you close the files or keep reading? I have reviewed not the entirety of the files. So I have 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. The buck stops at the top, and your testimony today is you have not reviewed all the files. What I've been doing is been busy providing the safest country this country has seen in modern US history in historic speed because the men and women of the FBI are given the resources to reduce the homicide rates, to reduce the drug trafficking rate, to reduce the amount of children that are being trafficked, and the number of. It sounds like those children being trafficked. I appreciate the director reviewing the files. You said you don't know the number of times Trump's name appears in the files, so it could at least be a thousand times. Is that right? The number is a total misleading factor. We have not released anyone's name. We have not released anyone's name in the files that has not been credible. Director, could at least have every piece of legally permissible information. You can characterize the numbers however you want. You're 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 art. Keep going. Reclaiming your time because the people of California are being underserved by your representation. The President 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. Your fixation on this matter and baseless accusations that I'm hiding pedophiles is disgusting. Anyone that says that needs to look at the stats alone and go back to the state of California, who's receiving the biggest surge in FBI resources through my redeployment because the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. Director, remembering your oath to tell the truth, did you ever tell Donald Trump his name is in the files? I have never spoken to President Trump about the Epstein files. Did you ever tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? The Attorney General and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team. Did you tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? And we have released where President Trump is. A simple question. Did you tell the Attorney General that the President's name is in the Epstein files? During many conversations that the Attorney General and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed. The question is simple. 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 this country and the number of pedophiles that are legally harbored in your sanctuary cities in California? I'll work with you on that. Work with us on that. Belongs to the gentleman from California. Did you tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? The question has been asked and answered. You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt. Director, did Donald Trump ever say to you, "Just find and release the entire truth. Don't worry if I'm in it"? The instructions from the administration were to release all credible information, and we have done that. Did Donald Trump ever provide information about Jeffrey Epstein as an informant? Donald Trump has not been, and I can only speak for the FBI, an informant of the FBI. So, director, you've played this cute shell game where you say you can't release everything because the court has said that it legally is not allowed to be released, but the court calls Judge Richard Berman said that when you went to the court, quote, "Information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales pales in comparison to Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice." So, let's move on. Director, you wrote a book called "Government Gangsters." You identified 20 individuals in that book. You put me on that list, at the top of the list. Thank you. My children find it flattering. 20 of those individuals have been investigated or have had adverse actions. Director, considering that you have identified these people as quote "government gangsters," will you recuse yourself from making any investigation decisions about these individuals? Anyone that has been terminated at the FBI has been done so failed to meet the muster and their constitutional obligations. Work on the audiovisual capabilities. I'm going to borrow your terminology and call on your entire career in Congress. Been a disgrace to the American people. You can reclaim your time all you want. Mr. Chairman, you're going to allow a witness to speak this way. Mr. Chairman, would you give yourself The gentleman has no time? Mr. Chairman, would you admonish the witness not to insult members? Gentleman has no time. Mr. Chairman, committee will remember. Quick point of order. Um, could the gentleman be extended an additional 20 seconds to complete his thoughts since the witness decided to interrupt him? And the witness will be able to respond if he wants. We'll make sure we have time to do that. My question is, will you, director, recuse yourself, yes or no, from investigating or making decisions about the 60 individuals, including myself, that you identified as government gangsters? Yes or no? Time of the gentleman has expired. The witness may respond if he would like, and the answer was no, as I heard. Correct. Okay. The gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. Um, I wanted to talk a little bit about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the FBI's subsequent investigation. I know it's really sensitive and, uh, you know, you can make the call as to whether or not obviously it's it's something that you can respond to, but uh, I think it's still fresh on many people's minds. I want to congratulate you and Utah law enforcement for the work you did in uh in identifying the suspect and and apprehending him. Uh, according to public reports, and I think this is what maybe it's um I I still have questions about and maybe the public does. According to public reports, the alleged shooter arrived at on the Utah Valley University campus nearly four hours before the shooting. Is was that your understanding? Is that kind of I'll let the public reports reflect themselves. I don't have the exact timeline. Okay. So, we don't have any idea kind of his prep or how he set up or how he utilized that time when he first showed up on campus. All of those are being currently investigated through our cell phone analysis and through our witness interviews. And the state of Utah has now announced charges seeking the death penalty against this suspect. So, we're a little limited in what we can continue to say. Sure. I understand. And that suspect, like you referred to, is then captured on security footage jumping off the roof of the alleged shooting location, the Lozi Center. Do we have any idea how the suspect got up on the roof in the first place? I I think for members of Congress, especially after Butler and Pennsylvania, it it's just unimaginable that there could be some type of security breakdown prior to an event of that size where somebody could access a rooftop. Um, so not commenting on the case, but having gone to the crime scene and walked the steps that we believe were taken, the roof was actually readily accessible through an exterior stairwell, so anyone could have gotten on it. Okay. Okay. Um, the suspect flees on foot to kind of this wooded area where he drops the rifle, wraps it in a towel, and then proceeds to his staged vehicle and basically drives home. So, do do we have any idea what the towel was about? Was it used later to identify a place where the firearm was left or what we sorry uh what we can tell you is the towel there was a screwdriver found on the rooftop which DNA was collected off of and the towel was found wrapped around the firearm in question in a wooded area next to the campus. All have been processed for DNA. And then according to the suspect's roommate, there were allegedly messages on instant messaging platforms, specifically Discord, suggesting the towel may have been used to identify that weapon's location. So, the public reports have suggested that the shooter acted alone. Do we still believe that that's true? Do we have any idea as to whether or not those Discord messages led us to believe that the shooter may have had help in any way or assistance? I can only speak to the FBI's investigation and our investigation is ongoing and we are interviewing any of those individuals involved in that chat and other individuals in the area. Very good. And if so, my suggestion, if there are accomplices, I'm sure this is something that the FBI is going to continue to investigate fully and thoroughly into the future. Yes, sir. The reason I asked that is because I don't know that that was necessarily the case uh with Butler, Pennsylvania. So, thank you so much for your persistence kind of in this matter. There's still a lot of uh public questions that need to be asked. Uh, let me shift uh to another topic very quickly. On July 31st, 2025, the DOJ and the CIA declassified the annex to Special Counsel John Durham's 2023 report on Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Um, the 29-page Durham annex contains previously classified information about, among other things, the investigative referral of the Clinton campaign plan. Uh, why would somebody place documents in a burn bag related to this case? That case is very much ongoing, so I can't comment on the stylization of the evidence we're collecting. Can you comment at all on the Durham annex as I described it? The Durham annex, which has been publicly released thanks to the FBI's commitment to transparency, is one of the documents that's being utilized. And in general terms speaking for a burn bag, sir, a burn bag is what you use to put classified documents into generally because that is literally how you destroy them. So it it appears that efforts were made by the Clinton campaign to reach out to the FBI agents or the Clinton sympathizers in the intelligence community in order to lend more credibility to the Clinton campaign plan. Do you think that's an accurate characterization? Again, I'm not going to characterize that material because it's part of an ongoing investigation. Thanks for being here today. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California is recognized. Thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. The FBI searched Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan residence. Correct. I believe that happened in 201 18. I think there were two locations, sir. 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. Time is a New York Times article that says, "Jeffrey Epstein Indicted on Sex Charges as Discovery of Nude Photos is Disclosed," dated July 8th, 2019. And the Times reports a trove of lewd photographs of girls was discovered in a safe inside financier Jeffrey Epstein'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, and I was sitting talking to Epstein and he said, "Wait a minute. I got to show you something." Um, and then 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 each 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 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. So certainly you weren't there at the search. You don't know what Epstein 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 raise 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. Wouldn't it be good for the FBI to interview Michael Wolf? I'm not saying they haven't. I just don't know. Has the 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. Well, let me ask you this question then. Um, have you looked at all the photos in the 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 raise 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, wouldn't it be great if the FBI subpoenaed the estate 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 estate and you better do that. That's literally not how it works. I'm going to move on now and talk about Epstein's client list. You confirmed that it exists. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed earlier this year that it 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 Epstein's. Is Donald Trump on Epstein's client list? The index has been released and the index will speak for itself. I'm just going to say, America, there's a huge red flag. FBI director could not answer whether Donald Trump was on Epstein's. Gentleman's time is expired.

Now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the director for being here and for uh his work over the last several months um removing the taint of partisanship that has infected the intelligence community over the uh past several years under the last administration, under the last several directors, standing up for law enforcement, standing up for the brave men and women who work in your agency. Uh, but to set the record straight, you know, we have to correct the record. And and the record um early days of the first Trump administration saw a dramatic spike in news stories that contained sensitive and sometimes classified details about the FBI's bogus Russia probe, about a leak a day. It's unacceptable that senior FBI officials coordinated to leak classified information to try and harm President Trump. Um, documents produced to the committee in August of this year revealed that the FBI interviewed a former uh intelligence committee staffer who gave details on a systematic process through which leaks of classified information were effected by then chairman, now Senator Adam Schiff. Were these findings escalated within the bureau's chain of command, and if so, to what level? Sorry. Were the findings, were these findings that were given to us escalated within the bureau's chain of command? And if so, what level did you receive this information? That that entire matter is currently under investigation by the people at the FBI that handle leaks of classified information. All right. It's good to know that there is an ongoing investigation. Um, can you tell me whether these leaks uh to the media compromised any ongoing FBI investigations during the Trump-Russia probe? I can tell you generally speaking, the leaks of classified information were detrimental to any work the FBI is doing. Now, former Director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had never been an anonymous source, nor authorized anyone to be an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation. Was Comey's testimony true? In reference to Director Comey, um I'm very limited in what I can say because of what the current status of those matters are with the FBI and the Department of Justice. When I am able to make those public, I will. Can you tell me if there's an ongoing investigation there? Again, without identifying any individuals related to the information you're generally speaking about, there is an ongoing matter that has been under review by the department and the FBI for some time because we know that the documents that we received last month revealed that former Director Comey used Columbia University law professor as a conduit to leak stories to the media that contained classified information. Let me move on to the way that uh the FISA process was weaponized by past directors. U prior to your confirmation, you raised concerns about government misuse of FISA, including Section 702, stating that FISA was in need of major major reform. Specifically, you highlighted that u the FIS report that the FBI had conducted 278,000 improper searches of the FISA database. Do you remain concerned about governmental abuse of FISA in Section 702? I'm always concerned, but what we've done since I became FBI director is implement new um audit systems. We are nearing a 100% review of the 702 query system that you are specifically referring to. And we've also eliminated anyone that has ever touched that database that has in any way made a mistake uh whether intentional or not. And we have also um identified a system in which those going forward who misuse the 702 system, they don't get two strikes, they get one and you're done. Okay. I'm glad you mentioned you're continuing to audit because as you know, in May, the New York Times reported you closed the FBI's Office of Internal Auditing. Uh, can you explain why you decided to close this office? Yeah, because under the new restructuring of the FBI to save resources, there were two different places doing the exact same thing. We have a specific division dedicated to audits. I didn't need another audit system doing the audits again. And so we folded some of those folks with their expertise into our specific division and then took the rest of those folks and are moving them out across the country. Under previous FBI leadership, uh FBI agents were found to have lied to the FIS. There have been hundreds of thousands of violations of querying standards. In light of past violations, what action is the FBI taking to ensure that similar abuses do not occur in the future? U exactly what I've outlined. You cannot have access to the 702 query system if you improperly query that system at all at any time in your career. Okay. At a Senate hearing two years ago, your predecessor, Director Ray, testified FBI had previously purchased US phone geolocation data for a specific national security pilot project and further stated that the project had not been active for some time and that the FBI relies on court-authorized process to obtain location data from companies. Does the FBI purchase location data or any other data of Americans from data brokers? I don't believe so, but I'll get back to you. Thank you. That'd be important. I appreciate that. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Washington's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, before you 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 black book 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 coverup. 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 asked the public to come forward with more information and we'll look into it. Today, in response to Mr. Massie'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. I will take where 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 unfair, but this is not fair and you will get your This is my time and he said, the witnesses were not seconds of time. I'm going to get an additional minute of time because that's 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 Departments had. And they determined, not me, they determined that that information was not credible. 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 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 and 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? Not I'll tell you what happened in the last Trump administration. Credible or not. 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 you the gentle lady 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 meet with the women who were sexually and raped and groomed to the gentle lady from Washington years old. Are you going to cover up? Are you going to continue? I'm going to recognize the gentleman from Jersey Powerful men, including those that might be on this committee. I can yell too, Mr. Chairman, but I don't want to yell above this. 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 Biden 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.

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. Chairman, I have some unanimous consent. 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. Without objection. And I have another unanimous consent request to enter into the record an August 2025 article by the Guardian entitled, "Ghislaine 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 recognizes the gentle 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 buying that you've been transparent or that there's nothing further to be seen. Um in your exchange with my colleague Mr. Boy, 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 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'll have to 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 the 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 the investigation. There's a non-prosecution 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 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 cover-up, that you would be taking very different actions than 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." Without 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. Chairman, 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 Mellon, Robin Vince; Bank of America, Brian Moynihan; 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 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 request, you know, that we do this immediately.

I think the director has been very forthcoming. We will hold any motion to subpoena and obeyance until the conclusion of the hearing. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director Patel, for being here. It is quite clear, it is quite clear that certain members of this committee, you know, they want their 15 seconds on TV, stamping, and maybe it's for fundraising, maybe they're struggling in their district. They need a little bump, but they, they turn a committee into a clown show, and, and that's what we're seeing. You're being unjustly attacked today. I watched the Senate hearings yesterday. You were attacked there. We know there's an agenda. There's always an agenda. It's the same characters with the same personalities, the same objective, and that is to destroy the MAGA movement. You're being attacked, Director, is because you're effective. You highlighted what you've been doing in DC with the president and reducing violent crime. You're very effective. Another individual that was very effective with meaningful debate and dialogue was Charlie Kirk. And they killed him for it. Charlie Kirk was a man of faith, first and foremost. He loved his, he loved his Lord Jesus. He loved his family. Beautiful wife, beautiful children. Just a remarkable, honorable man that was silenced with this assassin's bullet. I would say if Charlie Kirk lived in biblical times, he'd have been the 13th disciple. He'd have been the 13th disciple. We have a new committee, if you're not aware, a new select committee regarding January 6th. I'm honored to be on that committee. I'm looking forward to working with other members to expose truth, questioning federal agencies that were involved on January 6th, like the FBI played a role. But we don't really know, Director, to what extent. We don't know. The January 6th sham committee was not formed by Nancy Pelosi to seek truth. It was nothing about getting to the truth about January 6th. Their sole mission was to damage Donald J. Trump and end his political career. And everybody knows it. That's what the purpose was. You know what's nice? I kind of get to ask the question though, how did that work out for you? Donald J. Trump is back in the White House and America loves him. I spent 30 years in law enforcement. Oh, retired sheriff from a large county of the great state of Texas. I have seen, Director, I have seen more enthusiasm and support for law enforcement today because of what you and Donald Trump have done over the last eight months to protect the American people. The American people couldn't count on their government to protect them. Crime is rampant. And now we have a president and an administration that puts the American people and their safety first. It's interesting, a few minutes ago I was, you know, I, I, a classmate reached out to me and sent me a, I told him, I said, "Yes, we got Director Patel in front of our committee today." And Andy wanted me, Andy Kaine wanted me to tell you. He said, quote, "Tell him we love him. Tell him we love him and all the brave warriors exposing the deep state. Cash, you're a great American, sir. You're a great American. Your work as the director of the FBI is commendable. It's commendable. And I want to thank you, sir. Thank you for your service. Keep up the good fight, brother. Don't let them tear you down. Keep up that good fight. You have it in you." With that, sir, I yield back.

Gentlemen, yield. Gentlemen, yield to me. Uh, Director Patel, there, there were 26, uh, the gentleman mentioned the select committee. There were 26 confidential human sources at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Four entered the Capitol and thereby broke the law. Do you know if those individuals were being paid by the Ray FBI?

So, we've provided 600 pages of documents to this committee alone regarding January 6th. That's 600 pages more than any of my predecessors. Generally speaking, confidential human sources are always paid by the FBI. That's how it works. I can't speak to the specifics on each one and how much they make.

And we appreciate it. We've reviewed some of that material and you've given us a lot of material that we didn't get from Director Ray. That specific question, I think, is important to the American people. Um, were people who were confidential human sources of the FBI who broke the law? One was, one was recommended for prosecution, my understanding is, by the information we've received from you. Were they actually paid by the very taxpayers who may have got charged with the same, same offense? I think that's important for us to understand.

I'll get back to you on that. Thank you. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, welcome, Director Patel. Um, I want to focus a little bit on domestic terrorism. We have a graph here, data up to 2021, but as you can tell, um, domestic terrorism is, is on the rise. Uh, nation, our citizens under threat. We saw the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Uh, two assassination attempts on the president. Uh, school shooting, Minnesota last month. And closer to home, just a couple days ago, Huntington Beach, peaceful vigil for Charlie Clark infiltrated by neo-Nazis who essentially, um, made the local individuals attending that event fear for their safety. Um, all of us know that a lot of these domestic attacks are by lone wolves. Uh, but yet they do leave clues, social media or elsewhere. Director Patel, you're it. You're the thin blue line. The FBI, your job to protect our citizens back home from those that would harm us. You have to find the needle in the haystack. Takes a lot of work, a lot of resources. Talking to my local sheriff this morning who said they have, they're concerned federal cuts, federal cuts to local grants that help them do the job. Then of course, let's not forget about other threats that are coming before us, like high-tech fraud. Local senior recently was talking to me about a text she had gotten, a demand by the IRS to send a payment immediately or the IRS agents who are on their way to arrest this individual. Pretty gutsy stuff by folks probably from Europe, North Korea, Russia, China, people, okay, going after those precious savings our senior citizens rely on. Yet the president's proposing a budget cut of $500 million or more to your organization, the FBI. You've said that that'll essentially equate to about 1,300 less jobs at the FBI. So I'm going to ask you essentially, what is it that we can do to help you do your job? Little concerned. Friday night lights. One of the events I love to do on Friday nights, go to the local high school football game, sit there at the stadium and, and you always say, "What if? What if?" You're the thin blue line. Can you do your job cutting $500 million from your budget?

Thank you, sir. I think we, we are doing our job. And the distinction is with the budget that we have, we are flexing more resources to the field. California is receiving the largest FBI plus-up of any state in the union due to that plus-up. They're not getting a reduction. No state is getting a reduction. Every state is getting a plus-up. And so I'm utilizing the money that we have to first plus it up. And the empty vacancies, they, that we have, those haven't been filled in years, not my under my leadership.

Here's, here's my concern. If you're going to do well, you're doing more with less, is what you're saying. Yet, we're about to vote on a budget that has $88 million more to protect members of Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court. I'm, there's a contradiction here. Back on Main Street, we're saying you can do more with less. You can protect them with less money. Yet here in Washington, we're saying we need more money to protect members of Congress. It's a little contradiction here. Or maybe, sir, you ought to talk to leadership about coming in with your management style to protect the Supreme Court, Congress, and the administration. Otherwise, it's essentially a hypocritical situation. We need more protection, yet folks on Main Street can do with less.

My concern is folks on Main Street where that's, we also were, um, I think we received, uh, over $300 million in the big beautiful bill and we've also receiving pots of money from our interagency. So this sort of $500 cut isn't, um, entirely accurate. You're still getting cut $200 million plus. You're still moving your agents to do ICE work. So you are leaving a lot of bases uncovered. And I'm not going to be argumentative with you, Director Patel. I'm just saying if that thin blue line does not hold, people on Main Street will pay the price.

I agree with you, sir. And I just look forward to working with you because I am very concerned that these kinds of budget cuts are shortsighted, especially my local sheriff calls me and says, "We need more support and we're looking at budget cuts." I'll work with you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield time.

I'll get back to you on that. Thank you. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.

The FBI, and I saw what they're focused on in my community. Stopping drug traffickers, rescuing children from exploitation, fighting cyber crime, protecting us from acts of terrorism, foreign and domestic. And I know from my time as a federal prosecutor and a judge that this work by the bureau doesn't make headlines, but it is happening every single day.

At the top, accountability is necessary. Transparency is critical. But today, we've seen an effort not just to diminish, but to distort the work of Director Patel and the agents he leads. If we really care about transparency and about truth, then what we owe to the American people is this reality that thousands of dedicated professionals at the FBI wake up every single day thinking not about themselves but about this country and keeping every single one of us and our children safe from harm.

And Director Patel, I would like to hear from you the facts about what the FBI is doing and your efforts to fight crime. Director Patel, isn't it correct that since January 20th, 2025, the FBI has made over 25,000 immigration related arrests, including 350 members of Train Daywa and 195 members of MS-13?

Those numbers are accurate. The Trend Deagua numbers are up over 350% from the year before. And during that same period, hasn't the FBI seized over 66,000 kilos of cocaine, 6,000 kilos of meth, and 1500 kilos of fentanyl?

Uh, not to be nitpicky, but it's 89,000 kilos of cocaine and 7,300 kg of meth. And isn't it also true that the FBI Tampa division's Panama Stress Strike Force specifically seized nearly 67,000 kilos of cocaine valued at more than 1.6 billion dollars from illicit maritime vessels. One of our best operations out of the port of Tampa and I was down there in South Florida when Panax did their work.

Director Patel, since October 7th, 2023 Hamas attack, the FBI has been a co-leader of the joint tax force October 7th. Isn't it correct that this task force is actively working to bring justice for victims and to prevent terrorist infiltration at our borders?

Yes, ma'am. Since January 20th, hasn't the FBI arrested 59 foreign intelligence operatives for spying or smuggling dangerous material into the United States?

Yes, we have. And that's on track to be more than 25% than ever before. And the FBI has also been leading operations against major cyber threat actors, including those from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Isn't that right?

A 17% increase from year to date last year. Director Patel, the FBI's child exploitation task forces continue to investigate predators who target children online and across our communities. How significant is that threat today? And what results have you seen under your tenure in bringing these offenders to justice?

We have under Operation Grey Skull dismantled dark web units that are operating online, not just in the United States, but across uh the world to do our children harm. We have taken into custody more suspects than ever before on those who seek to harm our children. That is what the men and women of the FBI do. And that's what they're going to continue to do. Those are the real results when you let good cops be cops and when you let us get on these platforms and expose them to the public and show them the harms of these predators on these online gaming systems and social media systems. And we need more help from Congress to allow us more authorities to do that work.

The FBI laboratory manages the combined DNA index system or kotus which compares over 25 million DNA profiles and aids more than 125 investigations each day. Director Patel, why is this important to law enforcement nationwide?

All of law enforcement relies on our sieges operation out of West Virginia and all and what that does is allow 19,000 agencies to come in and say, "Hey, does this guy have a criminal history? Hey, is this an illegal firearm? Do we have a DNA hit like we did in these recent um um assassinations? That's what the FBI brings to bear because local and state law enforcement agencies doesn't have that capability and we're doing it 24/7 365. Sees does not close for one minute.

Our biggest threats involving nation state actors are the PRC, Russia, and China. And they are up 33%, 83% and 60% respectively in arrest alone this year. Those nation state actors wish to do harm in our infrastructure, our critical infrastructure system, our energy, our water supply, and also go after and target individuals and senior citizens and take their money through online pig butchering schemes which we've exposed in Cambodia by way of the CCP. This is groundbreaking work that the American public should be seeing that their FBI is doing and I'm happy to have the opportunity to report on it. Thank you. Director Patel, I yield back. Gentle yields back.

The gentle lady from Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple unanimous consent. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. In response to Mr. Mattel's making the remarks that um that maybe our colleagues are disparaging the men and women of the FBI, I'd like to intro into the record three unanimous consent requests. One is uh entitled FBI is using polygraphs to test a uh officials loyalty. Um, the second is Cash Patel knowingly broke law when firing top officials lawsuit alleges published by NBC. And the third is FBI forces out more leaders including ex-director who fought Trump demand for January 6 agents names without objection. Gentle from Vermont's recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Patel, thank you for being with us today. Appreciate your time. Uh, let me say at the top, political violence should have no place in this country. And I strongly, unequivocally condemn the killing of Charlie Kirk last week. And this is exactly the kind of case that warrants a swift and thorough investigation by the FBI. What shouldn't be happening, however, is this administration's seeming attempt to exploit Mr. Kirk's death within minutes of this horrible, horrible assassination, dividing us even further without knowing enough about the killer's complicated, confused political ideology and the extent of his motivation. And this week, Vice President Vance claimed that this is quote an extremely destructive movement of left-wing extremism and said that quote, "It's part of the reason why Charlie was killed." He pledged to go after organizations on the left. But Director Patel, it was just three months ago that Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota House Speaker, and her husband Mark were shot to death in their home in the middle of the night by a self-identified right-wing extremist and Trump supporter. When that assassination happened, the FBI released a written statement denouncing the killings and pledging to hold the killer accountable. And I thank the bureau for that. It was clear, concise, to the point. But when you compare that statement to the over 50 mentions of the Charlie Kirk killing and just four for the Hortman's on accounts affiliated with the FBI in your personal account, it appears to many Americans that you're valuing some lives more than others. And that's painful. And this is what I'm hearing from my constituents. So, I just want to convey that to you. And the vice president didn't even call on right-wing organizations to tone down their rhetoric after that horrific killing in Minnesota. And he never once spoke about dismantling conservative institutions. This week, when the president was asked by a reporter about Speaker Hortman, he claimed he didn't even know who she was. one of the most high proof profile assassinations of an elected official in recent memory and the president claims to know nothing about it, hasn't even heard of it. It was absolutely devastating for her colleagues and for her family and I think we all can agree in this room that we have to stop this political violence. So my first question to you is Director Patel, what is your plan as director of the FBI to turn down the temperature, especially in light of the fact that it seems like members of the administration um are reacting to political violence based on party affiliation. What's your plan?

I can only speak for myself and the guy. And what we are doing is I think I mentioned it earlier. We're following the money because whatever attack you are describing and they are all despicable equally so people need money to operate. People need money to conduct these attacks to conduct these invest in investigations. And so what we are doing is finding the people that supported this infrastructure system because even when you say there's a lone quote unquote lonewolf actor, he's not truly a lonewolf actor. something happened along the way. I agree.

And so can I just just because we have such little time, are you making a commitment right now to follow where the evidence goes in investigating whether it's violence on the left or the right? Because over the last 10 years, when you look at the ideology, I want to follow up on what my colleague from California said. When you look at the data, you look at the Anti-Defamation League data, 96% of ideological motivated killings were committed by the right-wing. Um when you look at the Institute of Justice report that she uh cited, it's five times the number that um five times the number of far-left extremist incidents are perpetrated by far right. And it's been reported and she mentioned this that as of September 12th, 2025, just 2 days after Charlie Kirk's killing that the DOJ removed that report from the DOJ website. That's why Americans are concerned that there seems to be a separate system of justice that if you are a Republican that and you are attacked, you will get the full weight and authority of the FBI in this administration. But if you are somebody serving in the Minnesota State Legislature and you are assassinated in your home, that the response is different. And I think to ignore the threats from the right or try to do a both end when there are multiple instances when it's overwhelmingly coming from the right. This is a disservice because Americans want to know that whoever they are whatever their political affiliation that the response is going to be the same and it is going to be done with the same diligence. And I'm wondering if you will commit to me right now that you will be a voice right now standing up to those voices in the administration that are adding adding to the violent rhetoric right now. That's what I'm asking you. Will you commit to this?

Time the gentle ladies expired. The gentleman can respond. My voice will be through the investigations that the FBI conducts and we will conduct them all lawfully and equally. Can we expect in the future that your tweets in related to one killing will be expired will be the same level of concern.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized. Thank you, sir. Director Patel, thank you for being here today and most importantly, thank you for restoring trust and faith in the FBI, which has been severely eroded under the Biden administration. Thank you for your service and your continued service in this capacity. On April 7th, 2025, Charlie posted on X, "A assassination culture is spreading from the left. 48% of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. 55% say the same about Donald Trump. In California activists are naming ballot measures after Luigi Man. The left is being whipped into a violent frenzy and setback. Whether losing an election or losing a court case justifies a maximally violent response. End quote. And unfortunately for Charlie, that reaction also came when they couldn't win a debate on a college campus. You cannot be intellectually honest and say that this problem is on both sides. It's not just what happened to President Trump. It's also what just happened to Charlie. We've gotten to a point in America where violence is encouraged. When you have a former president of the United States that opens up his campaign in 2019, that's Joe Biden, by saying that his opponent is a quote existential threat to this country. Houston, we have a problem. People that you disagree with are not existential threats. They are not Nazis. They are not fascist. They are not racist. They are not deplorable. They are not irredeemable. They are your fellow Americans who have a different perspective on how government should want should run and what government should look like. Whether or not we should have strong sovereign borders. Whether or not we should have safe communities. Whether or not we should have places to worship our God and not worry about being shot. Whether or not we live in communities and cities that are not overwhelmed by drugs and crime. whether or not we have two genders and whether or not we have common sense in our policies and our values. And people that believe these things are not existential threats. I happen to be one of these people that believes all of the above. And as someone that served this country in combat, I can assure you I am not an existential threat to this country because I swore to protect her. Also want to point out, how many cities have you seen burned to the ground since Charlie Kirk's death? Zero, no summer of love, no riots, no nothing, no looting, no killing, none. We simply gathered and prayed for his soul, his family, and this country because that's exactly what we represent. And while we might be angry, this righteous anger will carry on Charlie's message and legacy. I want everybody to know something very simple. Charlie is not dead because of what he said. He is dead because people listened. My time is limited. So I have a few questions for you, sir. And again, thank you very much for being here. I really appreciate your time and your service. Um, in your experience in the FBI, have you noticed a precipitous rise in political violence and other associated crimes that you have been investigating so far this year? And if so, is this trend in motive left-wing or right-wing violence?

I could always speak generally, sir. There is too much political violence and it has been a precipitate rise on on on too many fronts. How do we solve this? We solve this by giving the FBI more authorities to go into and work with the private sector. There are too many online platforms. There are too many social media platforms. There are too many gaming platforms. There are too many places for people from America and around the world to get together without their parents knowing anything about it, without their school teachers knowing anything about it and infection infesting the minds of our children and infecting them with radical ideology and with that is the root cause of these problems and we must tackle it. It is not a 1950s America anymore. In 2025, the cyerspace needs to be tackled. Thank you.

Switching gears. When your pred when your predecessor sat right there in that seat a couple years last year in a committee hearing I asked him a very detailed question about Matthew Thomas Krooks the shooter responsible for the assassination attempt on President Trump's life. I did get an answer from Chris Ray that day and I submitted written questions to the FBI and into the record of this committee and I'm going to resubmit those questions today because I think we are still wait awaiting answers to those questions. So Mr. Chairman I'd like to submit some for the record please. I'd like to ask you, sir, and the FBI under your leadership, would you please respond to these questions and can you commit to doing that? As soon as the trial's over. Thank you very much. I will end with this. Charlie Kirk is not dead because of what he said. Charlie Kirk is dead because people listened. He set up a tent that said, "Prove me wrong and exercise his First Amendment right." That's all he did. and we will continue to do so in this country in order to preserve this constitutional republic. With that, I yield back. Thank you, gentlemen. Gentleman yields back.

The gentleman from Florida is recognized. U Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um before I begin, I want to caution my colleagues on, you know, one-sided violence in this country. We just heard that there were no riots on the right. We're we're literally sitting in the building where there was a giant riot by supporters of the president, the right. We also heard that only leftists, okay, have said that Trump is a Nazi. In 2016, the current vice president of the United States said Trump is either a cynical or he's America's Hitler. And so this is the problem. Like I don't want to have to say this garbage, but you want me to sit here and get painted with one brush the whole left? No. No. There are extremes on the left and there are extremes on the right and we collectively should tackle that. But to come here and just look at us and say we all support what's going on in the extremes is why we can't solve anything in this building. director, let me say first, thank you for for being here and uh my condolences on the loss uh of your friend. Um, and I'm happy to hear that you want to do more on the social media platforms. Okay, it's crazy what's going on on the social media platforms. There are so many conspiracy theories on what's going on with Charlie Kirk. Israel assassinated him, right? There are conspiracy theories about your personal social life all day. It is totally rampant. Big names on the right. Candace Owens, right? Talking about how the what's been released as far as the dialogue between the perpetrator and his roommate is manufactured by the FBI, manufactured by the administration. It is totally rampant. Allowing foreign governments to just perpetrate these platforms, all of these bots all of the time to weaponize Americans. You see what's going on here? This is a byproduct of all of that. What's going on in the streets is a byproduct of all of that. What's happening is you see people celebrate Luigi Manion is a byproduct of all of that. And so if we want to do something, then we should talk about section 230. We should talk about how we're going to make sure that we don't let foreign governments poison our children's mind. And so I will work with you on that, director. I'll work with you on 2:30 any day. No problem. So now that was the good part. I I want to take your attention back a second. Okay. Breaking news. Cash Patel is nominated to be the FBI director. Dan Bonino is nominated to be the number two at the FBI. Maga celebrates, rejoices, bells are ringing out. The team, Patel, Banino 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 says there's no list. Oh no, no phase two. Phase two binders never happen. 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 the index has been released and the number of people involved in that trafficking operation were charged um in 2018 other than Epstein and Gelain Maxwell. your testimony in the Senate and 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 the other names that weren't 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 to 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? Will you 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 signal. It's 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. Oh. Oh, am I over? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your your gentleman's time is expired.

Chairman, I'll recognize the gentleman from California. Uh, Director Patel. Uh, as you know, my uh uh state California is uh home to the worst public infrastructure failure in US history. Uh known as California uh highspeed rail, although the name is probably a misnomer. Uh earlier uh this year I joined uh your counterpart uh at the Department of Transportation, Sean Duffy, uh doing a compliance review of the federal money the state has received. And the outcome was that the state has not complied with the terms of its billions of dollars in funding because it hasn't actually built anything. And so that federal funding uh has now been cut off. But uh a lot of us in California still have questions as to where all the money went. We're 17 years in to this project uh and absolutely nothing has been built. Not a single uh bit of track has been laid. There are no stations, there are no passengers. Uh and the uh the plan initially was to have the whole thing LA to San Francisco done uh by 2020 at a cost of $33 billion. Uh yet here we are in 2025, nothing has been built. And according to the New York Times, not the track, the project won't even be completed this century and the total cost is now estimated to be over 130 billion. So, I just wanted to ask you, do you think this is something that bears scrutiny or can you confirm whether there's any kind of investigation going on uh at the FBI?

The FBI certainly can't investigate incompetence, but the FBI certainly can investigate and does investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. And so, if we have any information that indicates that that happened in this situation or anything else, we'll look at it. Thank you very much.

Um, we've also, uh, you know, been talking some today about, uh, the issues that occurred at the border during the Biden administration. Uh, and, uh, you might not agree with, uh, your predecessor, uh, on everything, but, uh, you probably would agree with some of the statements he made in testimony before this and other committees uh, raising alarms uh, about uh, the risk of terrorism from illegal border crossings. Uh since becoming director, uh have you gotten uh some insight into uh how well calibrated those warnings were and what is the status of that risk now?

Um since becoming director, there's been a sharp decrease of border crossings for known or suspected terrorists from the southern border. But unfortunately, there has been a sharp increase of known or suspected terrorists entering through our northern border. And so what I'm trying to do is work with our northern border states and our inner agency to tackle that problem. but it is an absolutely massive border um that can't physically be sealed. So, we are going to have to get um creative and put more resources into that.

And in a in a similar vein, uh there were over 500,000 unaccompanied children uh that crossed the southern border during the Biden administration. Um as we know, uh many were uh trafficked either through forced labor or or sex trafficking. Uh do you have any insight into as to what the scale of that problem was and how have things changed over the last several months other than what you outlined in terms of how it was described?

I don't have any additional details in terms of how many people are being trafficked into this country, especially um unaccompanied missing children. That number has drastically reduced because the coyotes that smuggle these children uh for their criminal activity are the same ones that smuggle in narcotics or the same one that traffic older women. They're all interconnected and because of the sealing of the southern border by this administration that has come to a near halt. That is a very important point that we have seen far fewer victims of human trafficking uh because we've finally prioritized border security. Um and by the way, you have children who are getting rescued because of the immigration enforcement activities that unfortunately some politicians uh in my state are trying to stop, thereby stopping those kids uh from getting rescued.

We've seen uh of course a substantial reduction in crime here in Washington DC since the FBI and the National Guard got involved. Um, I'm kind of asking you to state the obvious here. Uh but what is the mechanism there? Uh why have we seen a reduction of crime when DC has had such a huge crime problem for years and then almost overnight we see such a big difference?

Because of the dedication and resources from President Trump's administration to utilize all federal, state, and local assets in a heavily crimeridden area. I mean, if we did not have a crimeridden area, then homicides, carjackings, and um uh gun violence would not be dropping by 40, 50, 60%. And when you allow the police, the MPD to work with federal authorities and allow the National Guard to set up your perimeter, this is what you can do in a few short weeks. And we at the FBI under Operation Summer Heat have set those phase 01 operations in motion four months ago quietly at the direction of President Trump. So we are scattered across cities across this country doing just that and but we're going to need more help to complete the job. Yeah. In too many places in this country, crime has just been treated as sort of a norm that this is the way things have to be. What's happened in DC shows that is not the case if we have the right policies and the right priorities.

Uh finally, you know, this is tragically the second time uh in as many years that we've had an FBI director here following either an assassination or a assassination uh attempt. And so since uh there's been some time now since uh from the attempted assassination on President Trump at Butler, uh would you say that the public's understanding of what took place on that day uh is fairly consistent with all of the facts as you know them or do you believe there's still material facts that uh have not been made public or are not fully uh understood by the public?

No, I think it's fairly consistent. Thank you. I yield. Gentleman yields back to Lady from Texas recognized.

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 consider 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 lady's 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 the gentleman from South Carolina.

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 are 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 you. Thank Thank you, director, for that. And uh we appreciate your service. We appreciate the results speak for themselves, I think, pretty plainly, and your commitment not only to results, but to to transparency. So, we we do appreciate that. Uh director, who is John Durham? Uh he was appoint a former federal prosecutor, United States attorney and ultimately appointed uh special counsel in the first Trump administration. Correct. And and what what there was a a document that he released in his findings called the Durham report. What were what was the Durham report briefly and what were the findings very briefly?

It was every special counsel that's appointed produces a report to the attorney general. Special counsel's Durham report largely focused on Crossfire Hurricane and included extensive summary findings in classified and and unclassified manner and we released the classified version finally declassifying it for the American public in this committee. Correct. And you released that in July of this year. I think so. Yes, sir. Uh, isn't it true that in the in the UNC the classified Durham annex as it's referred to, uh, that in 2016, the Obama administration obtained intelligence information from a source contained in two separate memoranda, one in January of 2016 and one in March. Uh, the two memoranda described confidential conversations between DNC chair Debbie Washerman Schultz and two individuals from the Soros Open Society Foundation. Isn't that true?

As written in the report, I'll let it speak for itself.

In in the Durham annex in January of 2016, uh the memorandum noted in part that President Barack Obama intended to scuttle the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server and mishandling of highly classified information during her time as Secretary of State. Isn't that found in the report?

I believe so.

Okay. Uh, isn't it also found in the report that in March of 2016, the memorandum also included references to the same Obama effort to shut down the Clinton investigation, but additionally outlined a plan to falsely connect Trump to Russia. Isn't that in the Durham annex?

I think it's in more than the Durham report, but yes.

Um, the memo also stated in part that quote, "The Democrat party's opposition is focused on discrediting Trump among other things." Uh the Clinton staff with the support from special services is preparing scandalous revel revelations of business connections between Trump and the Russian mafia. Isn't that also found in the now unclassified Durham annex?

I believe so, sir.

According to the Durham annex, uh based on analysis and uh translation of the intelligence, FBI analysts believed that special services could either mean the FBI or CIA uh or the Trump dossier author Christopher Steel. Isn't that in the Durham annex?

I believe so, sir.

When the Obama administration received intelligence in March of 2018, Fusion GPS was preparing open-source opposition research regarding purported ties between Trump and Russians. The research was paid uh by the Clinton's campaign and the DNC. Isn't that open source? And also in the Durham annex, I believe both. Okay. And so in in uh also in the Durham annex which I found interesting was the uh potential campaign plan uh was shared with high ranking career officials at DOJ. Isn't that in the Durham annex?

I believe so sir.

The Durm annex uh describes that in July of 2016 uh emails allegedly between Leonard uh Bernardo, senior vice president of George Soros's Open Society Foundation, uh concluded um or uh included data providing specificity on the Clinton plan in an attempt to smear Donald Trump by falsely linking him to Russia. Isn't that in the Durham report?

I believe so.

And so briefly, this additional evidence that you've uh unclassified and and released to the American public, what does that purport to show or or augment about the Durham report uh that you can share with the American people?

Put simply, that the FBI was weaponized against a political campaign. Yes, sir. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back.

The I have UC's. Gentle lady from Texas recognized for unanimous consent. Yes. Um first one is Russia's ghostriter hacker group takes aim at German election. This is from Politico. Objection. The next one is director of um national intelligence 30 days until election 2024 which specifically states that our assessments about activities and goals of Russia, Iran, and China are unchanged from earlier election um security updates and that they were meddling. I object. And I've got three more. The last three are that um how Russia is using artificial intelligence to interfere in elections. Moscow's attempts to interfere in US and other elections are nothing new though their tactics and strategy are constantly evolving. Objection. The next one is Russian interference coming soon to an election near you. Russia pursues a systemic strategy of undermining elections and influencing public opinion in the West, EU, and NATO countries must recognize that Moscow often acts through agents within their own borders and build resilience to such interference. What's the source? This one is carnegie endowment.org. Okay, without objection. Thank you.

The gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Director Patel, I'm glad that I'm going a little out of order here because I'm going to pursue some of the things that you were just talking to Mr. Fry about and remind you about your confirmation hearing. At your confirmation hearing in January, you said under oath, and I quote, "There will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no uh ret retributive actions taken by the FBI should I be confirmed. And in your written response to the Senate questionnaire, you said, I quote, "Personnel decisions shall be based on performance and adherence to the law, and every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for case assignments." So I want to just go through a couple scenarios with you to get a sense of whether you think these are examples of politization of the FBI or making decisions based on the performance and adherence to the law. So, first question, would hiring FBI agents, analysts, and supervisors from only one political party being politicization of the FBI or making personnel decisions based on performance and adherence to the law?

We don't ask FBI people applicants where their political parties are. Uh uh Mr. Patel, do you ask FBI applicants who they voted for?

We the FBI does not.

Um are you aware that in the lawsuit um that Mr. Driscoll filed against you and the FBI he was asked who he voted for since that lawsuit has been filed and it's on lowing litigation.

I'm not able to comment.

Well, but it also means that you just said that what happened in his situation didn't happen. So we will go on to the next question. Let me ask you an even easier one. Does firing agents for working on the cases that they were assigned to and that the president didn't like is that politization of the FBI or making personnel decisions based on performance and adherence to the law?

The FBI doesn't terminate anyone based on case assignments alone.

Has the FBI ever been sued by somebody who felt that they were terminated based on case assignments in the entire history of the FBI?

I'm sure they have.

No, since your tenure, I'm sure there's ongoing litigation.

Yes.

In fact, there is ongoing litigation. And in fact, people have been asked who they voted for. And in fact, you are running an FBI for the president of the United States rather than the people of the United States because my questions were not hypotheticals. They are the things you have done during your tenure. And according to a lawsuit filed last week by long-term FBI agents, you fired former acting director Brian Driscoll. He had served with the bureau for nearly 20 years, earned a medal of honor, medal medal of valor for bravery during the dangerous ISIS raid, and had a wealth of crisis response experience and led the FBI's critical incident response group. When the Trump administrations interviewed Mr. Driscoll for that role, they interrogated him about his political leanings and who he voted for in the last five elections. questions Mr. Driscoll refused to answer because those types of questions impermissibly politicized the FBI. You also fired Steve Jensen, who served the FBI for nearly two decades and ran critical terrorism, counter intelligence, and organized crime operations, whom you you once described as embodying what the American public demands of the FBI. But he was fired be took because he took part in investigating crimes committed on January 6th and Trump's MAGA base lambasted you online for keeping him at the FBI. So he's no longer at the FBI. You also fired a decorated combat veteran with decades of experience in the bureau, Special Agent Walter Jardia, because he worked on the investigation into the Russian interference and the 2016 presidential election and helped investigate Trump's ally, Peter Navaro. Director Patel, it is very clear that you have flunked your own test. You put saving your job, which I actually believe you were being honest about during your confirmation hearings, over doing what's right for the FBI and the American people. That is not adherence to the law. Thank you, and I yield back.

Time of the gentle ladies expired. Uh the chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Patel, it's great to have this opportunity. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your service. And I've got to say, one of the most disheartening components of the previous administration when I was working with law, local law enforcement all over the state of North Carolina, all over the country, people rightfully did not really care about the inner work. 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 walked 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 8:00 p.m. 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 to 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. Um, 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 seven 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 Abbegate 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. Ask 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 D.C. 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 U.S. 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 24/7, 365, and on the opioid epidemic that is killing more than hundreds of thousands of people a year. We have seen 1,600 kgs 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. A 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 counterintelligence 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 are online. We have nearly a 20% increase in indictments arrest in 7 months alone this year. We're going after those that 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 the most 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 it was handled by Mr. Acosta 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 4 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 non-prosecution 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-ordered 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 D.C. Because of this, we are taking this fight in D.C. to every single city across the country. 2100 arrests in the last month alone. D.C. 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 billion 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 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 D.C. It's because the FBI gathered sources and evidence that we were able to through our source network identify the horrific murder of the D.C. 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 gentleman from California, Mr. Director, delighted to have you here. You are a breath of fresh air. As you outlined, and I won't repeat it, uh the accomplishments you did so with the same resources as your predecessor, roughly. Is that correct?

I believe so. Yes. And so how much of that uh has to do with taking people out of the backside of the FBI and moving them into the field into doing the job for which we primarily pay the FBI?

It's exactly what we needed done. One-third of the FBI's workforce resided in the National Capital Region before I got there. One-third of the crimes do not happen in Washington D.C. Not anymore. Not anymore. So, 1,000 personnel of the FBI were deployed across this country on a permanent basis. And every single state in this union is getting a plus up, not a reduction, a plus up of 1811s of intel analysts and support staff. And that is why the crime rates are going down in record numbers.

Well, thank you for doing that. And and you know, it's it's perhaps the hardest thing for a bureaucrat to do is to lower the headcount around them that support them. And I appreciate your willingness to do it different than your predecessor. You, you, a lot of what you, you uh covered earlier was the find, the discovery, and then the prosecution that is done by the DOJ. But I want to talk a little bit about the prevent side on the Charlie assassination, sir.

No, no, no. On all of these. Okay. Okay. For example, and I'll bring it up before the Democrats bring it up, January 6th. January 6th, we now know because of your find that in fact there were people involved who were not just observers but participants who in fact, it's been alleged, and I, I personally believe, in fact, were part of promoting, perhaps even uh the one woman who died, encouraging her to walk through a door that led to her death. When you see that kind of activity and you know it was done under predecessors with full knowledge, whether it's January 6th where embedded people cross the line, or any other activity, uh including obviously the the the Russian hoax that we're now dealing with up in, you know, front and center. My question to you is, what can you or others do to prevent it from occurring again? Not on your watch, but on future watches. How can we know that this won't happen again the moment you leave the FBI?

One major question I have after decades of doing this on each on the our side of it, both the chairman myself and others, both at oversight and here, have seen that the FBI and the Department of Justice hide behind non-statutory practices. Now, you've changed the interpretation of many of those practices. That's why we're getting the discovery that was previously withheld. How do we work together to make sure that we never again have false walls, non-statutory walls that say the Department of Justice has a has a prohibition about giving quote, you fill in the blank, that has led to the chairman not seeing anything until you took over?

I'm wedded to aggressive constitutional oversight. Having been a House congressional staffer, I know that is an important part of securing our democracy. And the way we make it an everlasting enduring process is by showing the American people the results of what we are doing and the important work of this committee and putting it out to them so they can see government waste, fraud, and abuse and then they can demand from our constituents and our electors that they want this process to continue.

Last major question here. Some things are so sensitive that we both would agree they cannot be made public. Will you commit to this committee when it is too sensitive to dis to disclose that you would at least make it available for in-camera review by the chairman and ranking members or others designated?

I, I have done that and I will continue to do that.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a breath of fresh air. This is the beginning of what we need. But my questions today uh for the director are ones in which I believe that we do need to codify by agreement or by statute if necessary the kind of openness and transparency that we're seeing from this administration, the kind of discovery that's allowing us to do our oversight properly, and I would hope that uh that that be the followup to this, al obviously along with the Attorney General, and I yield back my 4 seconds.

Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from New York is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Director Patel. In the wake of the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump said, uh, quote, "Violence and murder are the tragic consequences of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible." Close quote. I would note for the record that Donald Trump has famously demonized practically every person he has ever disagreed with, and therefore using his own logic, he has put their lives at risk. I should know, about two weeks ago, when I announced my my decision not to go, when I announced my my decision not to seek re-election, many people on both sides of the aisle, including the chairman, offered me well wishes and thanked me for my service. Donald Trump, on the other hand, took Truth Social to call me a quote psychopathic nut job, among other things. Yesterday, I received a threatening note filled with anti-Semitic comments and hateful attacks that mimics some of the same language used by the president. I am sure many of us on this committee face similar threats every day. We have seen political assaults on both the left and the right. The attack on Charlie Kirk, the attempted assassination of the president, the murder of the Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House, the assault on Paul Pelosi, and the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, for example. Director Patel, do you agree that there is political violence from both the left and the right?

There is too much political violence.

You agree, yes or no, that there's violence?

There is too much political violence based on ideologies from either side.

Do you, from either side?

Okay. Are you aware of the study by the Cato Institute, a well-known conservative group, that found that 69% of the violence is from the right?

I'm not familiar with that study.

You're not familiar? Okay. I, I would commend it to you. Are you aware the administration has threatened to use violence as an excuse to crack down on liberty and freedom of speech?

Say that again. I'm sorry.

Are you aware the administration has used, has threatened to use violence as an excuse to crack down on liberty and freedom of speech?

Nobody at the FBI is doing that.

I didn't ask you about the FBI. I said the administration.

I speak for the FBI.

I would like to enter the record an article from today's New York Times titled "Trump Invokes Kirk's Killing in Justifying Measures to Silence Opponents." In the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing, President Trump and his allies have laid out a broad plan to target liberal groups, monitor speech, revoke visas, and designate certain groups as domestic terrorists. Ask unanimous consent to insert this into the record.

Thank you. Politicizing the murder of Charlie King to go after free speech is not a legacy I believe Charlie King would have wanted. Moving on, I want to address another topic. The FBI has traditionally played a key role in prosecuting public officials for corruption. But I fear that at a time when the president is accepting planes from Qatar for his post-presidential personal use, issuing pardons to major donors, and personally profiting from the office of the presidency, the FBI may be abandoning its commitment to investigating public corruption. Since its creation in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Public Integrity Section has been one of the crown jewels of the Department of Justice, investigating and prosecuting corruption among the nation's public officials and acting as a key safeguard against politicized prosecutions. This section's work has been supported by an elite squad in the FBI devoted specifically to rooting out corruption. But according to reports, the Public Integrity Section has now been decimated and the FBI's public corruption squad has been dismantled. I would like to submit for the record a New York Times article entitled "FBI Dismantles Elite Public Corruption Squad." I ask unanimous consent.

Thank you. These actions are an invitation to corrupt politicians to break the law since they know that the government is asleep at the switch. Last month, Senator Warren and I, along with dozens of other members of Congress, wrote to you and Attorney General Bondi expressing grave concern over your decision to effectively legalize corruption and politicize prosecutions. And he asks unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record.

Thank you. I don't have time today to walk through all your questions, all of our questions and concerns, but will you commit to answering this letter in short order so that we can understand what factors led to this decision and how it has impacted the ability to hold corrupt officials accountable?

I will review, I will review your letter with my team and respond as soon as you will respond.

Thank you. I yield back uh the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director, for being here. I appreciate the the change in uh the FBI and the tone since you've been there. Um, we heard the ranking member, however, describe uh the FBI under your leadership as being resorting to political enforcement and you personally as being paranoid. I would just suggest that perhaps that is the projections of the ranking member himself and not you, sir. Um, I want to refer to something that was said yesterday in yesterday's hearing by um, Senator Grassley. Uh, he said, "It's well understood that your predecessor left you an FBI infected with politics." At your nomination hearing, he made, he gave you records, uh, uh, made public records about whistleblowers regarding something called Arctic Frost. Arctic Frost was the FBI case opened and approved by anti-Trump FBI agent Theebolt. And Arctic Frost became Jack Smith's elector case. The new records show that Arctic Frost was much broader than just an electoral matter. In fact, it was expanded to Republican organizations. Some examples of the groups that the Ray FBI sought to place under political investigation included the Republican National Committee, Republican Attorneys General's Association, and Trump political groups. In total, 92 Republican targets, including Republican groups, Republican-linked individuals, were placed under the investigative scope of Arctic Frost. On that political list for investigation was one of Charlie Kirk's groups, Turning Point USA. In other words, Arctic Frost wasn't just a case to politically investigate Trump. It was the vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors could achieve their partisan ends and improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus. I'd ask that, Mr. Chairman, that that document be administered.

Without objection. So, um, I, I know that this may be under current investigation, but I wish to ask specific questions about this for just a moment. What search tools were used in Arctic Frost to view private communications of targets?

I believe uh the traditional search tools, search warrants, lawful service of process, and the and the um tools that the FBI has in our infrastructure systems, cybersecurity systems, and counterintelligence systems. But generally speaking, if I may, I want to use this to highlight the fact that I'm continuing my promise to work with Congress to produce documents simultaneously and also conduct ongoing investigations. I'm giving you as much as I can and I'll give you more when I can.

Thank you. Uh, another question regarding that is, were there any directives from the Biden White House concerning the Arctic Frost investigation? Were there any, sorry, communicate, uh, directives or communications from the Biden White House itself, uh, concerning the Arctic Frost investigation?

I'll just rely on what was turned over to date, sir.

Okay. So, I, I want to add here um the search warrants that were used included the seizing of a U.S. member of Congress's phone. I think we all know who that was and how that was taken away and used for political purposes. M. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Director. So, we'll leave that for a second and let's go over to um, uh, the the Charlie Kirk case for just a second. Let's, let's emphasize this. Uh, how many hours did it take from the assassination to the arrest of the assassin, Mr. Director?

33.

That seems uh pretty swift, and it was because of the the actual release of videos and photographs that you, you directed to be released, sir.

That's correct. And to put it in perspective, the Boston bomber took 5 days and Luigi Manion took 5 days.

Was the platform Discord forthright from the start with law enforcement about the shooter's communications on its platform?

Discord, the platform ownership has been working with our lawful process and we are obtaining materials from them on a rolling basis.

Thank you. And um, I want to get back here to uh Arctic Frost for just a second. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the um unclassified document from the FBI released uh to be admitted to the record.

Objection.

And a document uh from the Economic Times also to be admitted to the record.

Objection.

So, um, I'm going to give you the last 30 seconds. We could go on about the Epstein, Epstein case. I've got a bunch about that, but I'm just going to let you, if you wish, to respond to either of the, uh, two vitriolic um, questioning or statement from the Democrats.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. Appreciate your good work. Uh, uh, Director Patel, yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Maryland's recognized. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Director Patel, before you joined the FBI, you railed against it for covering up Jeffrey Epstein's human trafficking ring. Let me refresh your memory with this clip. It has Epstein's list there 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 pedophile, um, the largest scale pedophile in human history?

Simple. Because of who's on that list.

So, you finished that December 2023 interview with a challenge to the FBI and harsh words for Republicans in Congress for not getting the Epstein files out to the public. You can 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 FBI director each had complete authority to release Epstein's client list. You said Epstein's black book is under the quote direct control of the director of the FBI. Look at this clip. This is way off the topic, but who has Jeffrey Epstein's black book?

Black book. FBI.

But who, that is that, I mean, there's Oh, that's under direct 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 the FBI director.

We have released more material than anyone else before. The Biden administration, 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, we're not going after child.

Hang on. You said we're not going after child predators. 1,500 child predators arrested this year. 35% increase. 4,700 child victims.

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 have you changed?

Wait, 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 release.

Which 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 law works?

Wait a minute. Do you want me to break the law in a federal judge's order?

No. I want you to follow your own word. Director, you said up there it was under the direct control of the FBI director. He had the black book.

Everything I have direct control over, we have gone to court.

You have 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 we release, we're releasing.

He'd like to complete his answer. You, you began the sentence. Everything you have direct control over I and then you stopped 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. Look at them.

I, I'm perfectly familiar with them. But how did we prosecute um, Ghislaine Maxwell? She, 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.

Stop that. 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 released more information on Epstein than I have.

Has anyone? Much more. Comey did. Ray. 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, that's a tiny fraction of the material we're talking about. It is a tiny fraction. How do you know that? Have you seen everything? It's all misdirected.

Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from California is recognized. Well, thank you, Mr. Director. Just to be clear, how many of the Epstein files were released in the four years of the Biden administration?

Zero.

And how many have you released?

I, I don't have the number, but it's got to be thousands of pages of stuff.

I, I was going to ask you uh to begin whether Americans are safer today than they were nine months ago, but you cited dramatic increases in criminal arrests since you've taken office, a dramatic decrease in crime that's resulted. Who would have thought that taking criminals off the streets would reduce the crime rate? But, but uh somehow we have stumbled upon that, that new truth. But it begs the question, what was the FBI doing during the four years of the Biden administration to to to to see that dramatic an increase in work under, under your tenure?

The simple answer is I'm letting good cops be cops. We're working with our state and local law enforcement. We're energizing our partnerships. We're bringing on more task force officers. When you have more cops in the streets, when you're using ground-based intelligence, when you're not weaponizing law enforcement and focusing on D.C. and focusing on the rest of America, this is what happens. It is not a significant mind shift in terms of how we maneuver the FBI. They've wanted to do this work since they signed up. We're just letting them.

And uh we, we've seen many prominent Democrats oppose your efforts to restore law and order to the streets of our nation's capital. I mean, all of us here have seen a dramatic change for the better here in Washington, D.C. Why are so many Democrats attacking you for that?

Sir, Democrats have been attacking me for a decade, as is the fake news media. They didn't like the fact that I exposed the Russia hoax and the largest weaponization of the FBI, DOJ in U.S. history. We proved it to be true with congressional oversight. I'm wedded to that congressional oversight and will continue to do that work.

Uh, Christopher Ray repeatedly warned this committee that the Biden open borders policy had produced a significant increase in terrorist threats that he said kept him up at night. Uh, the particular concern he said was the 2 million gotaways that entered the country during the Biden administration. That's an average of 41,000 every month. Uh, what are the monthly gotaway numbers today?

Sir, I'll have to get back to you on the exact gotaway numbers, but identifying that there are gotaways is step one. Going and manhunting them is step two, and that's what we're committing our resources to.

Well, that's, that's, that's my next question is is what progress has the administration made in apprehending and removing terrorist threats that came in during the Biden years?

I think you're talking about, if you're not, let me know, known or suspected terrorists. And we've encountered almost zero at the southern border since the southern border has been sealed. But the problem that we are running into is our northern border. It's largely expansive. The enemy has adapted and we need more focus on the northern border to stop known or suspected terrorists from coming in from places like China, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan.

And what can you tell us about the remaining threat posed by potential terrorist cells here in the United States?

The, the terrorist threat that is continues to be posed by international terrorists here in the United States is one of my highest priorities. We are working through our intelligence community partners to identify those individuals and we've taken down numerous individuals in numerous rings across this country to neutralize that terrorist threat, including in places like New York City, Los Angeles, and I believe Dallas, Texas, most recently.

How extensively did criminal cartels like Sinaloa, Jalisco New Generation, MS-13, Tendiarua, and others infiltrate our country during the Biden administration?

By the tens of thousands.

Well, and what progress have you been making in combating their presence?

I think the DHS is best to speak to that, but I think uh I can't remember the numbers of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals they found that came in illegally and the tens of thousands that associations, the criminal networks have all been deported. And that effort is being opposed every step of the way by Democratic leaders in our cities, some of our states, and right here in the Congress. Isn't that true?

Well, we're just working where we can in every single city we can and I welcome the opportunity to partner with Republicans or Democrats on fighting violent crime like we're doing. Mr. Biggs asked about Arctic Frost. What else can you tell us about that and what we need to do to assure that it never happens again?

Continue the congressional oversight work that you're doing on Arctic Frost. Let me provide you with more documentation on Arctic Frost and also call in witnesses from the paperwork that we have given you. You have that right and the American public deserves to hear what those people have to say. As for my ongoing investigation, there's not much I can say.

What um role did u the FBI play in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2024 election?

Off the top of my memory, sir, um I believe the FBI was in possession of verified information from that laptop and it was improperly publicized that they did not have information and masked it as Russian disinformation. We now know that was categorically false. I don't know why the FBI did that, when they did that, but we've released all the materials related to that.

Thank you. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr. Coleman. 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 legally 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 Ghislaine 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, your 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 th 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 you're 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 war pursuant to Mr. Acosta's collection of information based on the search warrants.

That's all we have in our possession.

And I'm, I'm asking you 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 prosecutor for 10 years. I know exactly how.

So, I was a fake one 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 hands down 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 order? 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? 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 effort. So I hope you will talk to them when they have requested to speak with you. The victims have requested. You are not responding to them.

Director, yes or no? Is the FBI still spying on parents at school board meetings?

Uh, no, sir.

Is the FBI still targeting Catholics?

No, sir.

Is the FBI still spying on President Trump?

I don't believe so.

Is the FBI still censoring Americans?

Uh, no, sir.

Is the FBI still targeting Americans for shopping at Cabela's or purchasing Bibles?

Nobody is targeted for their faith.

Is the FBI still targeting Americans who are pro-life?

Nobody is targeting anyone for their belief.

Is the FBI still cooking the books on crime data?

The crime data is real.

Is the FBI still purging agents for conservative viewpoints?

No one at the FBI has asked their viewpoints on policy.

Is the FBI still labeling the Betsy Ross flag, the flag of the American Revolution, a hate symbol?

No. Well, maybe that's why you've been able to What was the number? 23,000 bad guys you've arrested. A huge increase from the same time period in the previous administration. I think you said 1,400 predators, 4,000 children rescued. Is those were those effects?

4,700. 35% increase on children rescued.

Yeah. And you got the guy to Abbegate.

We got the Abbegate. We got the Abbegate guy. A guy from the fourth district of Ohio who lost his life there serving our country. We appreciate that.

Maybe when you're not focused on politics, you can actually do what the FBI is supposed to do. Go get the bad guys.

Right. That's what the men and women of the FBI do.

Director, did uh did John Brennan lie to Congress?

Let me, let me, let me just read a couple things actually before you answer that. Two years ago, we had Mr. Brennan in for an interview and I asked him, "How did you learn about the dossier in December of 2016?" Mr. Brennan replied, "I received a copy of it from the FBI and the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele Dossier in the intelligence community assessment." That's what John Brennan told the United States Congress 7 weeks ago. The Director of National Intelligence told us this. John Brennan lied and denied using the dossier in the intelligence community assessment because he knew it was discredited. CIA officer told the House Intelligence Committee. Brennan refused to remove it. And when confronted with the dossier's main flaws, he responded, "Yes, but doesn't it ring true?" John Brennan lied to us.

Mr. Chairman, I won't stylize the evidence. Um, what I will say is that the intelligence community assessment, those that created it, and any individual involved with it, is an ongoing investigation. There's an investigation into what took place in December and January of December 2016, January 2017 when this whole thing started, this grand conspiracy that is being investigated. Is that right?

That has been publicly announced by the Department. That's been announced by the Department.

Did Chris Ray hide documents from this committee?

You would know better than me, sir.

Well, I think you told us like 700 pieces of information you've given this committee since you've been the director relative to just one incident. The Catholic memorandum from the Richmond field office.

I can give you the comparison, sir. Yeah. Uh, the Catholic memo, I believe we turned over 750 documents. Uh, in um, Mr. Ray's tenure, I believe they turned over 19 pages. 19 pages. You give it a 700.

Why would Chris Ray hide information from this committee?

You want to hazard a guess?

I'm sorry. Hazard a guess why he would do that?

I don't know, sir.

Think maybe it was because they were FBI was spying on a priest trying to get him to break the priest-penitent confidence that exists. You think maybe that was the reason?

You'd have to ask him, sir.

Yeah, we'd, we'd love to do that. I want to read a few names here. RDK's Tropic Vortex, Riding Hood, Foggy Falls, Echo's Fate, Siren's Lur, Janet Christmas. What are these code names uh about, uh director?

You know, not off the top.

Seven. Well, RDK is tropical. My understanding these are code names for leak investigations of classified information from the year 2017. Does that ring a bell?

In terms of leak investigations, many of those are classified and many of those are ongoing. Uh, Mr. Chairman, but we, we are working with you to produce documents as we close those investigations or as we declassify them.

Let me ask you this question because this is something I've, I've, I've wondered about. The way the FBI used to work, the way this whole thing kind of, so many of these things unfolded. Seems to me you had all these people in government leaking information that then gets reported in the press. There's a story written about it and then that article is then used to further the investigation and move, move forward with what they want to do. Was, did that, did that take place back in '16 and '17?

That's the exact scenario that took place in the FISA application um for uh Carter Page and the rest of the Trump campaign. And that is frightening because that's what the CIA is supposed to do in foreign countries. It's not supposed to happen to Americans. But it did, didn't it, director?

Yes. And not just any Americans. It happened with the president of the United States. Is that accurate?

Yes, sir.

Yeah. And you were the key guy in helping expose that. And I, I, you, I think our country will be forever grateful for what you did to to let the country know that was going on involving Americans, which is not supposed to happen. And not just again, any American, but the president of the United States.

Chair uh chair now recognizes the gentle lady from California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm concerned by reports that FBI agents have been diverted from their important work on crime and anti-terrorism to work on matters that are not critical to our safety. I'd like to play the video, the whole video. Jeffrey Epstein's black book.

Black book. FBI.

But who, that is that, I mean, there's Oh, that's under direct control of the director of the FBI.

Or the the black book. It's not just sitting. I mean, that's that's that's Hoover power times 10. And and to me, that's a thing I think President Trump should run on on day one. Roll out the black book. In contrast to that attitude of let it all out, we're um getting reports of uh actions that are run contrary uh to getting everything out and that also involve diversions of FBI resources. For example, an FBI whistleblower reported that you were pressured by the attorney general to place 1,000 personnel on 24-hour shifts to mine roughly a 100,000 Epstein-related records to redact President Trump's name from the files. Bloomberg uh reported this that you directed FBI special agents from the New York and Washington field offices to join the bureau's foyer employees uh in Winchester uh and another building a few miles away and that while reviewing the Epstein files, FBI personnel identified numerous references to Trump in the documents and people familiar with the matter said that Trump's name along with other high-profile individuals was blacked out. Now, the New York Times reports, and this is a quote, "Justice Department officials diverted hundreds of FBI employees and federal prosecutors from their regular duties to go through the documents at least four times, including once to

flag any references to Mr. Trump and other prominent figures. Details of the review were based on accounts by three former FBI and Justice Department officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of retaliation.

And further, that the FBI finished, uh, after they finished its review of the files and materials, it was sent to a team of Justice Department lawyers who double-checked the FBI's redactions and, quote, "were instructed to flag any mentions of Mr. Trump and other, uh, celebrities."

Now, I have three questions for you, uh, Mr. Patel, about this. Uh, first, how many times did President Trump's name appear in the Epstein files? Was it more than a hundred? More than a thousand?

Um, were the agents who were pulled from their duties to redact the president's name from the Epstein files working on criminal cases, or national security cases, or child sex trafficking cases? And are the number of agents that have been, uh, reported diverted for these purposes? Is that accurate?

No. No. What? You asked if it was accurate. I said it wasn't. So, you're saying that none of this happened?

No, I'm saying it was inaccurate. Okay. How many times did President Trump's name appear, uh, in the Epstein files? More than 100? More than a thousand?

No. And what we've been able to release is what we've been legally able to release. And that has—

No, that's not the question. I asked you how many times did the president's name appear?

I don't know. It's your testimony. You do not know that answer. The number of times?

No. Um, could you tell us how many agents were diverted for this task and what they were working on?

Well, when you say diverted, you make it seem as if agents were pulled off what they do all the time. Agents at the FBI masterfully do double duty and triple duty. And because of the public's interest in this case, we flex resources to make sure that we could answer the public's signal demand. So, do you want us to look through the material and provide it to you, or you do not want us to do that?

So, it's your testimony that no one was diverted from a criminal matter, that this was a top priority to go through these, uh, this material to look for Mr. Trump's name. Is that your testimony?

That's the highest priority for the FBI. What is one of the most impressive things about the FBI leadership and the careers that are in place is that they make the decisions on who to send where on priorities and make sure the mission needs are not hurt. And that's what happened here.

Uh, it's shocking to me that the FBI would think that erasing Mr. Trump's name from the Epstein files is a high priority when we have crime, we have national security threats, we have, uh, terrorism threats, we have murders, such as that that occurred unfortunately with Mr. Kirk. It's shocking to hear that that's your highest priority. And with that, Mr. Chairman, that's literally not what I said. Gentleman yields back.

The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Uh, Director, is President Trump implicated in any wrongdoing related to Jeffrey Epstein?

Based on the entirety of the evidence that we have, absolutely not. The president is not implicated.

Correct. Thank you. Um, I want to talk a little bit about China's malign influence here in America. And, uh, you know, we've seen spy balloons traverse the United States. We've seen police stations in communities around America. And, uh, sitting in the chair you're in, just two years ago, there was a sheriff from Cochise County, Arizona, Mark Dan, that was here, uh, who said that the, uh, the exponential increase in the amount of fentanyl that is coming into America is directly related to the open borders policies of the previous administration. Do you agree with Sheriff Danl's characterization?

Uh, in large part, yes.

So, um, since you've been director, has there been a reduction with, I mean, we've talked about how, uh, the border is largely secure now, right? The southern border?

Yes, sir. The southern border is largely secure. Has there been a concommittant reduction, or a reduction in the amount of fentanyl that is coming into America?

There has been a massive reduction to the tune of, we have seized more than 25% year to date this year than the prior year. And that's enough fentanyl to kill 120 million Americans. Does China play a role in this fentanyl that's coming to America?

Um, as I stated in my opening, sir, what they do, and the companies in China, mainland China, do, is produce the precursors and the cutting agents that they send overseas through various countries into the Mexican drug cartels who produce it. So, they basically are the cooks in terms of the ingredients.

Tell us, what is the FBI doing to stop China from delivering death to America?

So, for the first time in a decade, I actually reached out to my counterpart at the Ministry of Public Security. No one at the FBI had done so to engage the Ministry of Security.

Where is that?

In, in mainland China.

In mainland China, thank you. To engage in a conversation to say, "Hey, can we have a certain number of these precursor chemicals listed in China so that they become illegal and illegal to trade?" We've also working with our counterparts in places like India and Guatemala because the transshipment routes of the precursors, the Mexican drug cartels have gotten creative. And instead of coming directly to America, are going into these countries. And we've had massive success in India and Guatemala and in those governments, great partnerships in shutting down the ability to ship the precursors into those countries, which are ultimately destined to America.

So, those people that are working with security agencies, uh, have been, uh, working with you. Is that accurate?

Yes, sir.

So, I want to turn to a couple of cases that are at the University of Michigan, uh, where Chinese nationals, on behalf of the Chinese government, um, smuggled in illicit biological materials, um, uh, stuff that can harm our agricultural industry. What actions are you taking, um, as we see repeated stories of Chinese nationals doing this, uh, in the United States?

So, just that, sir, um, in this calendar year alone, as I was mentioning, our counterintelligence operations and cases brought against the Chinese are up by, I think, something like 40%. And specifically, the cases in Michigan show two threat streams, not just against our agricultural industry, which is a threat to national security, but they were also bringing in, um, chemical agents and mushrooms. I'm not the exact expert to that would have ultimately hurt our population. We arrested and charged all of those individuals and we were aggressively going after them in every single state because they weren't doing it in Michigan alone.

Should, uh, research universities across the United States be doing a thorough job of vetting Chinese nationals that are coming to their universities?

They should.

Uh, turning to spying in America, you know, we heard the stories about Diane Fein, Senator Diane Feinstein's, um, driver who was a Chinese spy. We're familiar with Linda's son who worked in Governor Hokll's office, Christine Fang in California. Um, are you, uh, what are you doing to find these people who are Chinese spies that are trying to burrow themselves into the politics of America because we know it's happening, right?

Yes, it is. And what our counterintelligence, um, unit is doing is aggressively seeking the intelligence into where these individuals are working. Then we are utilizing our operational authorities to go in and investigate them either through our human source networks and collecting information through lawful process, online search warrants and data so that we can bring proper arrest charges and publicize to the world what they're doing here. And just because we've caught a few doesn't mean we've caught everybody. We've got a lot more to go.

I get one more quick question in. Uh, the FBI, uh, arrested a judge in Wisconsin, Hannah Dugan, for interfering with a federal law enforcement operation. Um, could you tell us a little bit about that? And is a judge above the law here in the United States of America?

Well, no one is. And that case is ongoing. But as you stated, in these allegations, there was an interference in a federal lawfully executed federal law enforcement priority that was interfered with. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Patel, I believe you had primary importance and, and starting Operation Viper in Memphis. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And Operation Viper brought in the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, uh, to help Memphis police in, in policing the city.

That'll be phase two, sir. Phase one was, um, FBI and local law enforcement in Memphis for the last few months.

Okay. Uh, you, you did a good job and, and Police Director and the Mayor have told me that that was been helpful. Uh, the FBI working with the police, and the FBI are trained in law enforcement. They know Miranda rights. They know how to do policing, and they do a good job working with the police. Um, do you think that the National Guard is necessary to do the work that the FBI is doing now?

Thank you. I, I do think it's necessary to finish it. What we've done is 500 arrests in Memphis and 110 federal indictments. But what we need to do is, we've only secured a piece of where the criminal conduct is occurring in Memphis. And we can't work inside, uh, perimeters that are not established and safe. And we don't have the manpower to give us the space to fully go into the areas where the criminal activity remains.

Well, are you suggesting that the National Guard is going to go into the more crime, heavily crime areas? They're going to establish, like they did in Washington D.C., perimeters where local law enforcement and the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals can go into.

Um, we can't be going into all these areas knowing that they are extremely volatile and jeopardizing the safety of our agents.

But did the National Guard do anything in, in Washington to, to help the FBI stay safe from these dangerous elements?

They established perimeters.

Established perimeter and the, the criminals knew about it. So they, it was a visible force, sir. So they kind of saw it. Well, what you did, I commend you for what you did, and I think the FBI coming in. We have a crime problem in Memphis. The FBI has helped. DEA will help, and the, uh, ATF will help. I don't think the National Guard is going to help. And what I've seen, they're not trained in, they're not trained in law enforcement, are they?

No, sir.

And, and so that could be a problem. Uh, who will direct the National Guard in Memphis? Will it be, uh, will they have control over your agents?

No, sir. They won't.

Who will, who will have control over your agents?

You? Well, the SACE and then ultimately the chain of command up to Washington D.C. will control the FBI. But there's a task force that was put together that is going to be led by an interagency. The heads of U.S. Marshals, DEA, and FBI will be working together with DHS collectively on this.

Have you visited Memphis before?

Yes, sir, I have.

So, you know how good a city it is.

I love Memphis. A lot of us do. And Memphis is a great city, great history. Civil Rights Museum might say something about slavery, but that's that was the history needs to be taught. Blues, Elvis, Beale Street, Beale Street, right? Barbecue, and people should come. It's not a troubled city. We've got some crime, but it's not a troubled city. We're not troubled, and we love our city, and we hope that the National Guard doesn't come in and, and cause people to have questions about Memphis because it's a city they should visit.

Uh, let me ask you this about, you said that the homicide rates are coming down to an all-time low.

Uh, in modern recorded U.S. history. Yes.

When does modern recorded history start?

I think the FBI, and I'll get back to you on this, um, has stats on that going back about 30 years, sir.

Okay. I was thinking back to Ozzie and Harriet, and I didn't think you could beat Ozzie and Harriet's time. Um, secondly, you, you mentioned the Epstein case. Did any of the women that were victims, and they came up here and had a press conference and all, did any of them contact your office and ask to give information?

To my knowledge, no, sir.

If they did, let me ask you first. Is there a statute of limitations on sex crimes like that, with sex with a minor, rape?

The DOJ is the expert, but I do not believe there's a statute on that limitations on that.

So, there's not a statute of limitation. Should you not be interviewing those people who know who raped them and the names and the places and give you that information? That seems like that's a treasure trove of information and it's a serious, serious, serious number of crimes.

Sir, I couldn't agree with you more. We've been very public about asking individuals to come forward with new information, and we would run out every single lead on that.

Well, I'm sure the women will come forward, especially today, to be assured that they will get an opportunity because that seems like something we ought to do. Uh, the, uh, you, Mr. Driscoll, what was his reputation?

I can't comment on Mr. Driscoll's matter. It's an ongoing litigation.

Yeah, but his reputation, you could tell us about.

I can tell you I can't tell you about his reputation. His work, um, has been laid out in that lawsuit.

How many of the FBI agents who worked on the nine, the January 6th case have been fired?

I don't have that number, sir.

You have a ballpark figure?

No, but I can tell you that individuals based on case assignments in the FBI that I have led have not been terminated for case assignments.

Thank you, sir. Come back to Memphis and you work with Kevin Kane in our, in our tourism bureau. He's great. Thank you. And thank you for your work in Memphis. Gentlemen, back.

Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous 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 Acosta 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 a Wall Street Journal article 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. May it, 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 Engeler's decision from August in U.S. 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.

The 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 non-prosecution agreement hamstrung future investigations. Those constraints only apply to the Southern District of Florida. They do not apply to the Southern District of New York, the location of the 2019 sex trafficking indictment which produced many things, including a series of FD-302 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 Barclay's Bank, who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked 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?

So, 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, two different United States attorneys' offices from three separate administrations who investigated those same materials in lifetime. 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, 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.

I got to move on here. Were you present when the AG, uh, had the White House event when she released the binders to 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 victim's 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 interagency, 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, I have a unanimous gentleman yields back. Unanimous consent request from the gentleman from New York. I ask unanimous consent to introduce an unsigned memorandum from July 7th, 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.

Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. Uh, it's an article entitled, "DOJ Deletes Study Showing Domestic Terrorists Are Most Often Right-Wing." Without objection.

Thank you. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Director Patel, thank you for being here today. I want to, um, first, uh, talk about the, um, significant role that the FBI, FBI plays in, uh, combating the national security threats posed by our nation's greatest threat, uh, our nation's greatest security threat, uh, China and the Chinese Communist Party. Um, it's a fact that, um, China is America's most significant national security threat. Isn't that correct?

I would say so, sir.

And you would agree with me that China wants to, uh, dominate the United States of America?

I think that's largely their plan.

And want, they want to dominate the world both militarily and economically. Isn't that correct?

I think so.

And, sir, uh, you've been FBI director for the last, uh, what, eight months?

Seven months. Yes.

Seven months. And, um, and during that time, have you held any stock in any companies founded in China?

I don't believe so.

Well, you do own stock in a company known as Shein, don't you?

Which one? Sorry.

Shein. You own stock.

I think that's, I, I'll have to get back to you. I think it's a law firm and it's a company out of Singapore.

Okay. Well, no. The company out of Singapore which is owned by Shein is the Shaheen company, which was founded in China. Correct.

That company operates out of Taiwan. They changed their headquarters from, uh, China back in 2022 to Singapore for tax purposes, but it's owned by a Chinese billionaire. I think his name is Charlie Zeus. And, um, and you own stock in the company that owns Shein, which I disclosed during my confirmation process.

Yes, you certainly did.

And, um, now do you still hold that stock in that Chinese company?

Pursuant to the, um, the Department of Justice who reviewed my material that was submitted during my confirmation process, um, I was able to hold certain stocks and they made the—

You still hold the stocks that you have? You, you still hold on to these, uh, Chinese stocks? These stocks in this Chinese company?

I disagree that it's a Chinese company, but I was in the DOJ when you're appointed makes a call on what you can and can't possess.

Now, let me ask you this. Chinese companies steal trademarks. They produce counterfeit products and sell them over the internet on platforms such as Shein. Uh, they steal intellectual property. They steal data from, uh, American companies. And to me, it seems inconsistent with your role as FBI director that you would own stock in a company that is based in a country that is the nation's premier national security threat. It's like you are putting your own financial security over the security of the nation.

I disagree with that characterization.

Well, I think the American people look at it like it's a classic situation of the fox guarding the hen house. If the FBI is charged with investigating, uh, espionage, economic espionage, uh, by companies, uh, controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, and you are the director of the FBI, you've got a conflict of interest.

Sir, I would just show if there's any intimation that I'm—

Why are you holding on to this stock?

It wasn't a decision I made.

And it's, and it's valued at up to $5 million as of when you last reported. Correct.

$5 million in stock.

That I don't follow it. The department—

I don't follow it, but you're still making money off of it.

I don't have any money off of anything. What I have done—

Trump's trade policies directly impact the value of that Chinese stock. Won't you agree with that?

Which trade policy? I'm not a trade expert.

Okay. All right. But I want to tell you this crazy on me today. Let me ask you this question. Why are you hiding pedophiles? Why are you shielding pedophiles? Why are you protecting pedophiles?

That is maybe the most offensive thing you could say to me given the numbers.

Well, you have not released the numbers files of pedophiles. You were aware of the arrest client list that was published in the 18,000 and the gentleman has expired.

Um, the gentleman yields back. Answer the question.

Of course, the gentleman can answer the question. Since I took over the FBI, there has been a 33% increase.

Sir, all of that started under Christopher. Your time is done.

No, it didn't. The witness gets to answer the question and then we'll go to our next director, sir. And you're coming in here trying to take credit for something that a previous director instituted and largely brought to conclusion.

I take credit that the director offensive has numbers so much better than the previous director.

Tell if you want to answer the question.

I take no credit. The men and women of the FBI have seen a 33% increase in the number of counterintelligence arrests out of the PR. So all of a sudden when you coming in 7 months ago, gentleman is fired. And on the pedophile act for that, we have arrested 1500 trial child predators in the last 7 months under investigations initiated by the prior director. The director's good work, and we really appreciate that. The time the gentleman has expired. We now go to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the chairman. I thank the FBI director for coming before the committee. I assume the FBI director, uh, Mr. Patel, Patel, I believe, uh, you probably agree with me that there is a significant organized effort, uh, on the left, uh, side of the political spectrum to advance criminal organizations being able to put more criminals out on the streets. What we've seen, we've seen this in, in daily action. Are you familiar with the report that came out this last Monday from the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund?

I, I'm, I'm not familiar with that. Sorry.

So, this report came out this past Monday, and it said that a significant amount of the money flowing out of George Soros and other leftist organizations and funders has been funding DAs and prosecutors. And quote, "Many of these DAs have never managed an office, prosecuted a criminal case, developed organizational policies in dozens of America's largest cities and counties." This report finds these progressive district attorneys have outsourced core parts of the American criminal justice system to activists and political donors, taking direction and advice on everything from staffing decisions and communication strategy organizations. It's a complex web of donors going in through these organizations to radical, put radical DAs and prosecutors out there, putting criminals on the streets. Does the FBI director agree that this exists and is a problem?

I will accept the factual representation, and if that exists, it is a problem.

The organizations such as Tides, the Fair and Just Prosecution, Briner Center for Justice, Partnership for Safety and Justice, the Vera Institute of Justice, the amount of dollars flowing from George Soros through into these organizations and to the various prosecutors that have resulted in increased crime on our streets, including the brutal murder of the Ukrainian refugee in Charlotte. I bring that up because that is one component of the, the problem. In addition, we have an organized effort targeting our border, the NGOs, the nonprofits, and the deep pockets, the United Nations, charitable organizations, and a long list of over 250 organizations that the Center for Immigration Studies put out that lays out a complex web of organizations that were moving people into our country knowing that they're dangerous, knowing that they're criminal, associated with taxpayer dollars flowing through the United Nations and donor dollars flowing through organizations, including ostensibly religious ones, putting these dangerous individuals on the street that resulted in fentanyl in our communities, that resulted in the death of Jocelyn Nungare, of hundreds, thousands, even as the director testified, 100,000 people dying from these narcotics every year. All of this in an organized effort, a complete, um, effort by the radical left to use taxpayer dollars and these dollars to put people on our streets. In addition, the extent to which we've seen now with the Southern Poverty Law Center and their hate map targeting, for example, the Family Research Council, where we had a shooting right here in D.C. over a decade ago, putting Charlie Kirk, putting a target on TPUSA, Antifa, other radical organizations that are very specifically organized and targeting conservatives and ordinary Americans. How about the organized effort to infiltrate our schools and advance a transgender agenda and advance a radical agenda? Perhaps one that we will see exposed further in the individual that actually shot Charlie Kirk. So here's my question. Will you, as the director, and are you, as the director, pursuing all legal channels to follow the truth wherever it may lead on this organized effort? One, and two, do you agree that Congress should take all action necessary to expose this web of dollars that are flowing to undermine our way of life? I got another minute in my time, then I'd like to hear from you on this topic broadly.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like unanimous consent to insert in the record "Outsourcing Justice" by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund that I alluded to before. I would ask unanimous consent to add a 2024 list provided by the Center for Immigration Studies on these United Nations and other affiliated groups that are responsible, over 250 of them, for moving individuals into our country in a coordinated effort. Um, I would like a unanimous consent to insert a letter that I sent that currently has 33 members of the United States House of Representatives have signed on it calling for a special select committee to pursue the organized effort from the radical left to target our way of life and undermine our security by putting criminals on the street and having our borders being wide open and putting us in danger. Um, and, uh, with that, I would yield back.

Without objection, gentleman yields back. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of unanimous concerns. Uh, one is, uh, a, uh, letter from to Senator Tom Cotton, uh, dated last year, urging the U.S. to quote, "ensure that data from U.S. companies is not harvested by the Chinese Communist Party through the purchase of Shein software and technology." Objection. And, uh, also a, uh, a, um, statement by Marco Rubio, then Senator Marco Rubio, which warned our U.S., our UK allies about quote, "Shein's deep ties to the People's Republic of China." Without objection. Also, uh, a, um, "Crime is Down in 2025. Trump Doesn't Deserve Credit," which demonstrates that the crime rates have been decreasing since 2023, which was published by the Vera Institute. Also a, um, unanimous consent request to, uh, enter into the record an NPR report from July of 17, July of 2024. "GOP Vows to Make America Safe Again. Statistics Contradict Their Growing Crime Claims." Without objection. Also, a report, uh, out of the American Presidency Project dated January 17, 2025, "Record Low Crime During the Biden-Harris Administration." Without objection. Also, "Joe Biden Is Correct That Violent Crime Is Near a 50-Year Low," which was a, uh, Politifact publication of May 2024. And last but not least, a, uh, "FBI Releases 2024 Reported Crimes in the Nation Statistics." These are FBI statistics published, uh, on August 5th, 2025, which details decreases in murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery in 2024. Without objection.

Gentlemen, gentleman from KY's recognized for unanimous consent. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit, uh, two sets of documents. The first is a series of emails from the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. They are making FOIA requests to get their own FBI files and not having any success. So, um, I want to bring attention to that by submitting that to the record. The second document that I want to submit to the record, uh, for the record, I know we don't usually read these. This one's not readable. Uh, it's completely redacted, uh, for the most part, the first 50 pages. This is actually the search warrant that was served on James O'Keefe, uh, for a diary that he had already given to the government two months before. And as it turns out, there were no indictments here. Yet he still doesn't know why he was raided, and I think he deserves to know. So without objection.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California. Director, the first time you saw Donald Trump's name was in the Epstein files. Did you close the files or keep reading?

I have reviewed not the entirety of the files.

So, you have not 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. The buck stops at the top, and your testimony today is you have not reviewed all the files.

What I've been doing is been busy providing the safest country this country has seen in modern U.S. history in historic speed because the men and women of the FBI are given the resources to reduce the homicide rates, to reduce the drug trafficking rate, to reduce the amount of children that are being trafficked, and the number of—

It sounds like those children being trafficked. I appreciate the director reviewing the files. You said you don't know the number of times Trump's name appears in the files, so it could at least be a thousand times. Is that right?

The number is a total misleading factor. We have not released anyone's name. We have not released anyone's name in the FBI files that has not been credible.

Director, could at least every piece of legally permissible information. You can characterize the numbers however you want. You're claiming my time, director. It sounds like if you don't know the number, it could at least be a thousand times, which means it's not. Is it at least 500 times?

No.

Is it at least 100 times?

No.

Then what's the number?

I don't know the number, but it's not that.

Do you think it might be your job to know the number?

My job is to provide for the safety and security of this country. My job is not to engage in political innuendo so you can go out to the sticks and get your 22nd hit in your fundraising article. Keep going. Reclaiming your time because the people of California are being underserved by your representation.

President 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. Your fixation on this matter and baseless accusations that I'm hiding pedophiles is disgusting. Anyone that says that needs to look at the stats alone and go back to the state of California, who's receiving the biggest surge in FBI resources through my redeployment because the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco.

Director, remembering your oath to tell the truth, did you ever tell Donald Trump his name is in the files?

I have never spoken to President Trump about the Epstein files.

Did you ever tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?

The Attorney General and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.

Did you tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?

And we have released where President Trump is—

A simple question. Did you tell the Attorney General that the president'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?

Director, it sounds like you don't want to tell us. Did you tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump's name was in the Epstein files?

Why don't you try serving your constituency by focusing on reducing violent crime in this country and the number of pedophiles that are legally harbored in your sanctuary cities in California?

I'll work with you on that. That belongs to gentleman from California. Did you tell the Attorney General that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?

The question has been asked and answered. You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.

Director, did Donald Trump ever say to you, "Just find and release the entire truth. Don't worry if I'm in it"?

The instructions from the administration were to release all credible information, and we have done that.

Did Donald Trump ever provide information about Jeffrey Epstein as an informant?

Donald Trump has not been, and I can only speak for the FBI, an informant of the FBI.

So, director, you've played this cute shell game where you say you can't release everything because the court has said that it legally is not allowed to be released, but the court calls Judge Richard Berman said that when you went to the court, quote, "Information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales, pales in comparison to Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice." So, let's move on. Director, you wrote a book called "Government Gangsters." You identified 20 individuals in that book. You put me on that list, at the top of the list. Thank you. My children find it flattering. 20 of those individuals have been investigated or have had adverse actions. Director, considering that you have identified these people as quote "government gangsters," will you recuse yourself from making any investigation decisions about these individuals?

Anyone that has been terminated at the FBI has been done so failed to meet the muster and their constitutional obligations. Work on the audiovisual capabilities. I'm going to borrow your terminology and call on your entire career in Congress. Been a disgrace to the American people. You can reclaim your time all you want. Mr. Chairman, you're going to allow a witness to speak this way. Mr. Chairman, would you give yourself—

The gentleman has no time.

Mr. Chairman, would you admonish the witness not to insult members?

Gentleman has no time. Mr. Chairman, the committee will remember. Quick point of order. Um, could the gentleman be extended an additional 20 seconds to complete his thoughts since the witness decided to interrupt him? And the witness will be able to respond if he wants. We'll make sure to do that. My question is, will you, director, recuse yourself, yes or no, from investigating or making decisions about the 60 individuals, including myself, that you identified as government gangsters? Yes or no?

Time of the gentleman has expired. The witness may respond if he would like.

And the answer was no, as I heard. Correct. Okay. The gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentleman yields back.

The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. Um, I wanted to talk a little bit about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the FBI's subsequent investigation. I know it's really sensitive and, uh, you know, you can make the call as to whether or not, obviously, it's, it's something that you can respond to, but, uh, I think it's still fresh on many people's minds. I want to congratulate you and Utah law enforcement for the work you did in, uh, in identifying the suspect and, and apprehending him. Uh, according to public reports, and I think this is what maybe it's, um, I, I still have questions about and maybe the public does. According to public reports, the alleged shooter arrived at on the Utah Valley University campus nearly four hours before the shooting. Is, was that your understanding?

Is that kind of— I'll let the public reports reflect themselves. I don't have the exact timeline.

Okay. So, we don't have any idea kind of his prep or how he set up or how he utilized that time when he first showed up on campus.

All of those are being currently investigated through our cell phone analysis and through our witness interviews. And the state of Utah has now announced charges seeking the death penalty against this suspect. So, we're a little limited in what we can continue to say.

Sure. I understand. And the suspect, like you referred to, is then captured on security footage jumping off the roof of the alleged shooting location, the Lozi Center. Do we have any idea how the suspect got up on the roof in the first place?

I, I think for members of Congress, especially after Butler and Pennsylvania, it, it's just unimaginable that there could be some type of security breakdown prior to an event of that size where somebody could access a rooftop. Um, so not commenting on the case, but having gone to the crime scene and walked the steps that we believe were taken, the roof was actually readily accessible through an exterior stairwell, so anyone could have gotten on it.

Okay. Okay. Um, the suspect flees on foot to kind of this wooded area where he drops the rifle, wraps it in a towel, and then proceeds to his staged vehicle and basically drives home. So, do, do we have any idea what the towel was about? Was it used later to identify a place where the firearm was left, or what we—

Sorry, what we can tell you is the towel, there was a screwdriver found on the rooftop which DNA was collected off of, and the towel was found wrapped around the firearm in question in a wooded area next to the campus. All have been processed for DNA.

And then according to the suspect's roommate, there were allegedly messages on instant messaging platforms, specifically Discord, suggesting the towel may have been used to identify that weapon's location. So, the public reports have suggested that the shooter acted alone. Do we still believe that that's true? Do we have any idea as to whether or not those Discord messages led us to believe that the shooter may have had help in any way or assistance?

I can only speak to the FBI's investigation, and our investigation is ongoing, and we are interviewing any of those individuals involved in that chat and other individuals in the area.

Very good. And if so, my suggestion, if there are accomplices, I'm sure this is something that the FBI is going to continue to investigate fully and thoroughly into the future.

Yes, sir.

The reason I asked that is because I don't know that that was necessarily the case, uh, with Butler, Pennsylvania. So, thank you so much for your persistence, kind of, in this matter. There's still a lot of, uh, public questions that need to be asked. Uh, let me shift, uh, to another topic very quickly. On July 31st, 2025, the DOJ and the CIA declassified the annex to Special Counsel John Durham's 2023 report on Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Um, the 29-page Durham annex contains previously classified information about, among other things, the investigative referral of the Clinton campaign plan. Uh, why would somebody place documents in a burn bag related to this case?

That case is very much ongoing, so I can't comment on the stylization of the evidence we're collecting.

Can you comment at all on the Durham annex as I described it?

The Durham annex, which has been publicly released thanks to the FBI's commitment to transparency, is one of the documents that's being utilized. And in general terms, speaking for a burn bag, sir, a burn bag is what you use to put classified documents into generally because that is literally how you destroy them.

So, it, it appears that efforts were made by the Clinton campaign to reach out to the FBI agents or the Clinton sympathizers in the intelligence community in order to lend more credibility to the Clinton campaign plan. Do you think that's an accurate characterization?

Again, I'm not going to characterize that material because it's part of an ongoing investigation. Thanks for being here today. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. Gentleman from California is recognized. Thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. The FBI searched Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan residence. Correct?

I believe that happened in 2018.

I think there were two locations, sir. 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. Time is 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 lewd photographs of girls was discovered in a safe inside financier Jeffrey Epstein'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 then 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 each 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.

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 Michael FBI asked but the FBI I'll get back to you if the FBI specific about a 100 hours of testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. Would wouldn't it be good for the FBI to interview Michael Wolf? I'm not saying they haven't. I just don't know. Has FA 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 Epste? 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 going to move on now and talk about Epstein's client list. You confirmed that it exists. Attorney General Pam Body confirmed earlier this year that it exists. So, 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 Epstein'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 EP. Gentleman's time is expired. now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the director for being here and for uh his work over the last several months. Um removing the taint of partisanship that has infected the intelligence community over the uh past several years under the last administration, under the last several directors, standing up for law enforcement, standing up for the brave men and women who work in your agency. Uh but to set the record straight, you know, we have to correct the record. And and the record um early days of the first Trump administration saw a dramatic spike in news stories that contain sensitive and sometimes classified details about the FBI's bogus Russia probe. About a leak a day. It's unacceptable that senior FBI officials coordinated to leak classified information to try and harm President Trump. Um documents produced to the committee in August of this year revealed that the FBI interviewed a former uh, intelligence committee staffer who gave details on a systematic process through which leaks of classified information were affected by then chairman, now Senator Adam Schiff. Were these findings escalated within the bureau's chain of command, and if so, to what level? Sorry. Were the findings were these findings that were given to us escalated within the bureau's chain of command? And if so, what level did you receive this information? That that entire matter is currently under investigation by the people at the FBI that handle leaks of classified information. All right. It's good to know that there is an ongoing investigation. Um, can you tell me whether these leaks uh to the media compromised any ongoing FBI investigations during the Trump Russia probe? I can tell you generally speaking, the leaks of classified information were detrimental to any work the FBI is doing.

Now, former Director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had never been an anonymous source, nor authorized anyone to be an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation. Was Comey's testimony true in reference to Director Comey. Um, I'm very limited in what I can say because of what the current status of those matters are with the FBI and the Department of Justice. When I am able to make those public, I will. Can you tell me if there's an ongoing investigation there? Again, without identifying any individuals related to the information you're generally speaking about, there is an ongoing matter that has been under review by the department and the FBI for some time. Because we know that the documents that we received last month revealed that former Director Comey used Columbia University law professor as a conduit to leak stories to the media that contained classified information. Let me move on to the way that uh the FISA process was weaponized by past directors. U prior to your confirmation, you raised concerns about government misuse of FISA, including section 702, stating that FISA was in need of major major reform. Specifically, you highlighted that um the Fisk report that the FBI had conducted 278,000 improper searches of the FISA database. Do you remain concerned about governmental abuse of FISA in section 702? I'm always concerned, but what we've done since I became FBI director is implement new um audit systems. We are nearing a 100% review of the 702 query system that you are specifically referring to. And we've also eliminated anyone that has ever touched that database that has in any way made a mistake uh whether intentional or not. And we have also um identified a system in which those going forward who misuse the 702 system, they don't get two strikes, they get one and you're done. Okay. I'm glad you mentioned you're continuing to audit because as you know in May the New York Times reported you closed the FBI's office of internal auditing. Uh can you explain why you decided to close this office? Yeah, because under the new restructuring of the FBI to save resources, there were two different places doing the exact same thing. We have a specific division dedicated to audits. I didn't need another audit system doing the audits again. And so we folded some of those folks with their expertise into our specific division and then took the rest of those folks and are moving them out across the country. Under previous FBI leadership, uh FBI agents were found to have lied to the Fisk. There have been hundreds of thousands of violations of querying standards in light of past violations. What action is the FBI taking to ensure that similar abuses do not occur in the future? U exactly what I've outlined. You cannot have access to the 702 query system if you improperly query that system at all at any time in your career. Okay. At a Senate hearing two years ago, your predecessor, Director Ray, testified FBI had previously purchased US phone geoloccation data for a specific national security pilot project and further stated that the project had not been active for some time and that the FBI relies on court authorized process to obtain location data from companies. Does the FBI purchase location data or any other data of Americans from data brokers? I don't believe so, but I'll get back to you. Thank you. That'd be important. I appreciate that. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentlely from Washington's recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patel, before you 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. Swallwell 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. Massiey'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 this stat and you talk about coverups, man. You talk about coverups. I will take where 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. You have 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 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 departments had. And they determined, not me, they determined that that information was not credible. 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 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? Not I'll tell you what happened in the last Trump administration. Credible or not. 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 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 and raped and groomed to the gentle lady from Washington years old. Are you going to cover up? Are you going to continue from 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 this. 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 Ambiden 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. 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 recognizes 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'll have to 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 the 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. Without objection. and also an article dated se uh July 17th, 2025 in Epstein case. Follow the money. Objection. Okay. Thank you. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Chairman, 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 has been very forthcoming. We will hold any motion to subpoena and obeyance until the conclusion of the hearing. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Director Patel for being here. It is quite clear is quite clear that certain members of this committee, you know, they want their 15 seconds on TV stamping and maybe it's for fundraising. Maybe they're struggling in their district. They need a little bump, but they they turn a committee into a clown show. And and that's what we're seeing. You're being unjustly attacked today. I watched the Senate hearings yesterday. You were attacked there. We know there's an agenda. There's always an agenda. It's the same characters with the same personalities, the same objective, and that is destroy the mega movement. You're being attacked, director, is because you're effective. You highlighted what you've been doing in DC with the president and reducing violent crime. You're very effective. Another individual that was very effective with meaningful debate and dialogue was Charlie Kirk. and they killed him for it. Charlie Kirk was a man of faith first and foremost. He loved his he loved his Lord Jesus. He loved his family. Beautiful wife, beautiful children. Just a remarkable, honorable man that was silenced with this assassin's bullet. I would say if Charlie Kirk lived in the biblical times, he'd have been the 13th disciple. He'd have been the 13th disciple. We have a new committee, if you're not aware, a new select committee regarding January 6th. I'm honored to be on that committee. I'm looking forward to working with other members to expose truth questioning federal agencies that were involved on January 6 like the FBI played a role. But we don't really know director to what extent. We don't know. The January 6 sham committee was not formed by Nancy Pelosi to seek truth. It was nothing about getting to the truth about January 6th. Their sole mission was to damage Donald J. Trump and end his political career. And everybody knows it. That's what the purpose was. You know what's nice? So, I kind of get to ask the question though, how did that work out for you? Donald J. Trump is back in the White House and America loves him. I spent 30 years in law enforcement. Oh, retired sheriff from a large county of the great state of Texas. I have seen director I have seen more enthusiasm and support for law enforcement today because of what you and Donald Trump have done over the last eight months to protect the American people. The American people couldn't count on their government to protect them. Crime is rampant. And now we have a president and an administration that puts the American people and their safety first. It's interesting a few minutes ago I was, you know, I a classmate reached out to me and sent me a I told him I said, "Yes, we got Director Patel in front of our committee today." And Andy wanted me, Andy Kaine wanted me to tell you. He said, quote, "Tell him we love him. Tell him we love him and all the brave warriors exposing the deep state. Cash, you're a great American, sir. You're a great American. Your work as the director of the FBI is commendable. It's commendable. And I want to thank you, sir. Thank you for your service. Keep up the good fight, brother. Don't let him tear you down. Keep up that good fight. You have it in you. With that, sir, I yield back. Gentlemen, yield. Gentlemen, yield to me. Uh, director Patel, there there were 26 uh the gentleman mentioned the select committee. There were 26 confidential human sources at the capital on January 6, 2021. Four entered the capital and thereby broke the law. Do you know if those individuals were being paid by the Ray FBI? So, we've provided 600 pages of documents to this committee alone regarding January 6. That's 600 pages more than any of my predecessors. Generally speaking, confidential human sources are always paid by the FBI. That's how it works. I can't speak to the specifics on each one and how much they make. And we appreciate it. We've reviewed some of that material and you've given us a lot of material that we didn't get from Director Ray. That specific question I think is important to the American people. Um were people who were confidential human sources of the FBI who broke the law. One was one was recommended for prosecution. My understanding is by the information we've received from you, were they actually paid by the very taxpayers who may have got charged with the same same offense. I think that's important for us to understand. I'll get back to you on that. Thank you. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh welcome, Director Patel. Um I want to focus a little bit on domestic terrorism. We have a graph here data up to 2021. But as you can tell, um domestic terrorism is is on the rise. Uh nation, our citizens under threat, we saw the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Uh two assassination attempts on the president. Uh school shooting Minnesota last month. And closer to home, just a couple of days ago, Huntington Beach peaceful vigil for Charlie Clark infiltrated by neo-Nazis who essentially um made the local individuals attending that event fear for their safety. Um all of us know that a lot of these domestic attacks are by lone wolves. Uh but yet they do leave clues social media or elsewhere. Director Patel, you're it. You're the thin blue line. The FBI, your job to protect our citizens back home from those that would harm us. You have to find the need in the haststack. Takes a lot of work, a lot of resources. Talking to my local sheriff this morning who said they have they're concerned federal cuts, federal cuts to local grants that help them do the job. Then of course, let's not forget about other threats there are coming before us like high-tech fraud. Local senior recently was talking to me about a text she had gotten a demand by the IRS to send a payment immediately or the IRS agents were on their way to arrest this individual. Pretty gutsy stuff by folks probably from Europe, North Korea, Russia, China, people, okay, going after those precious savings our senior citizens rely on. Yet, the president's proposing a budget cut of $500 million or more to your organization, the FBI. You've said that that'll essentially equate to about 1,300 less jobs at the FBI. So I'm going to ask you essentially what is it that we can do to help you do your job? Little concerned? Friday night lights. One of the events I love to do on Friday nights, go to the local high school football game. Sit there at the stadium and and you always say, "What if? What if?" You're the thin blue line. Can you do your job cutting $500 million from your budget? Thank you, sir. I think we we are doing our job. And the distinction is with the budget that we have, we are flexing more resources to the field. California is receiving the largest FBI plus up of any state in the union due to that plus up. They're not getting a reduction. No state is getting a reduction. every state is getting a plus up and so I'm utilizing the money that we have to first plus it up and the empty vacancies they that we have those haven't been filled in years not my under my leadership here's here's my concern you're going to do well you're doing more with less is what you're saying yet we're about to vote on a budget that has $88 million more to protect members of Congress the executive branch and the Supreme court. I'm There's a contradiction here. Back on Main Street, we're saying you can do more with less. You can protect them with less money. Yet here in Washington, we're saying we need more money to protect members of Congress. It's a little contradiction here. Or maybe, sir, you ought to talk to leadership about coming in with your management style to protect the Supreme Court, Congress, and the administration. Otherwise, it's essentially a hypocritical situation. We need more protection, yet folks on Main Street can do with less. My concern is folks on Main Street where that's we also were um I think we received uh over 300 million in the big beautiful bill and we've also receive money from our inner agency. So, this sort of 500 cut isn't um entirely accurate. You're still getting cut 200 million plus. You're still moving your agents to do ICE work. So you are leaving a lot of bases uncovered. And I'm not going to be argumentative with you, Director Patel. I'm just saying if that thin blue line does not hold, people on Main Street will pay the price. I agree with you, sir. and I just look forward to working with you because I am very concerned that these kinds of budget cuts are shortsighted, especially when my local sheriff calls me and says we need more support and we're looking at budget cuts. I'll work with you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield time. Mr. Chairman, I have another unanimous consent request. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York's recognized unanimous consent. Uh, I seek to introduce a December 2024 uh, OIG report from the Department of Justice which confirms the conclusion of the Bill Bar Justice Department that the so-called whistleblower, a disgruntled former employee of the intelligence committee, was not a credible witness and there were no further actions taken. Without objection, Mr. Chair, I'd like to submit some items for the record. You bet. Gentleman from California. First one, Trump's deportation diverts FBI agents off child predator cases. Second one, FBI director backtracks on administration's proposed budget cuts. And number three, Trump administration says 70% of ICE detainees do not have criminal convictions. Without objection. Gentleman from Texas is recognized.

Thank you, director. Earlier this year, the committee learned of new documents tied to the Crossfire hurricane investigation and the Russia collusion hoax against President Trump. Your efforts and declassifying key documents tied to this investigation allowed the committee to acquire thousands of pages that it did not have previously. Did any of your predecessors make any effort to declassify these documents? Not to the extent we have. Did any of your predecessors share or leak any details that were classified at the time? There are ongoing leak investigations um across the board um at the bureau related to this. I believe one of those is Mr. Comey and I thank you for continuing that investigation. Among the declassified documents are the Durham report annex, the Crossfire binder and the Nelly or criminal referral. Could you summarize for those watching that what we know about the Russia collusion hoax so far? Well, sir, I think the the record will speak that um the Russia collusion matter was perpetrated by a uh political party to go overseas and obtain information from a foreign intelligence asset only to have that information, which was demonstrabably false, turned over to the FBI who walked into a federal FISA secret court and asked for a secret surveillance court order and lied to the federal court. And we know that because someone was convicted of it and uh only to surveil the political opponent. So that is a massive scandal. We helped expose it. And in terms of the pages of productions, I provided 1,400 pages of production related to Crossfire Hurricane and my predecessors have provided zero. I appreciate that and I appreciate your courage and commitment to declassifying these important documents for our review and hope that you'll continue with this commitment. Can we expect to see more declassification efforts regarding the Crossfire hurricane and Russia collusion hoax? Yes. Thank you. I yield the remaining balance of my time to Chairman Jordan. Oh, I I thank the gentleman for uh yielding. And director, that's when it all started, right? The whole Russia, that's when it all began. And then it was Mueller, then it was impeachment, then it was Jack Smith and Fonnie Willis and Alvin Bragg and you name it. But it all started then. And that's why I think the gentleman from Texas wants to make sure we get all the information there. And I want to go back to when it was changed. We talked about this earlier. Just want to read to you what the CIA officer said to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Quote, "Brennan refused to remove the dossier, and when confronted with the dossier's main flaws, he responded, yes, but doesn't it ring true?" So that's what he initially said. And then when he was talking to this committee, he said the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the steel dossier in the intelligence community assessment. So on one hand, you got a witness who was there who said he refused to remove it even though he knew it was garbage and then he's on the other hand telling the committee, "No, no, no. We didn't want anything to do with it. It shouldn't have been a part of the intelligence committee assessment." Which we know it was. You know it was. You found that. Those are two entirely different stories. I think Mr. Brennan has some explaining to do frankly what happened there. And I think you said earlier that this whole thing and I think you said to Mr. Gooden, this whole thing is being looked at as part of this grand conspiracy to undermine the president. Whether it's Comey, Brennan Clapper, former head of the intelligence committee, now senator from whoever it is, that's all being looked at. Is that accurate? Yes, sir. Well, we appreciate that. And part of what's also being looked at, and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin brought this up earlier, what is a burn bag for, by the way? Uh, generally speaking, the intelligence community obviously utilizes and possesses classified documents, but drafts of those classified documents and even ultimate finished products of those classified documents have to be recorded andor discarded. And if they are discarded, the only way we do that, the hard copies, is we literally put them in burn bags that are identified specifically for that purpose. And there is an very exact courier system in which those burn bags are obtained and the material inside is destroyed. So it's to get rid of the material, right? Yes, sir. And it looks like the annex that Mr. Durham in his investigation had was put into a burn bag by your predecessor. I assume to be destroyed. Is that accurate? Without getting into the stylization of the evidence, anything that's put in a burn bag is for purposes of destruction. Do you find that interesting that the Durham Annex was placed in a burn bag that you would discover that when you took over as the head of the FBI? We found a lot of information in a lot of burn bags. Well, we appreciate uh appreciate you finding that. We'd like to know a little bit more about that and we look forward to that information coming forward. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding. With that, we now recognize the gentleman from Colorado.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding his hearing. Thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. Uh, I have a couple of questions regarding a terrible shooting that occurred in Colorado, state as you may know that I represent. You've testified previously about, I think, what you would describe as your efforts to provide uh more information regarding the investigation with respect to the horrific assassination of Mr. Kirk. And so, you know, that same vein, I'm hoping you can provide this committee and my constituents in Colorado with some clarity. Absolutely. I think as my colleagues know, uh, in Evergreen, Colorado, Jefferson County, a county that I proudly represent at Evergreen High School, uh, a shooter ultimately injured. Two students were praying for their swift recovery. Uh, there's an article here from Cardo Public Radio. The title is, quote, "FBI was already investigating an account that may have been linked to the evergreen shooter." Um you're familiar with the circumstances generally director regarding this terrible of course tragedy. Yes. Um so my understanding from the public reporting is that an organization reported to the FBI in July of this year regarding uh just reading here from the article that the FBI opened an assessment into a social media account user whose identity was unknown and who was discussing the planning of a mass shooting with threats non-specific in nature. This is the FBI statement to the press. and that the FBI continued to work this assessment investigation to identify the name and location of the user up until September 10th, 2025, which was the day of the tragedy. Can you provide us some clarity on what were the impediments to finding, you know, the account user and maybe describe in greater detail uh the FBI's work in that regard? Generally speaking, yes, because I know even though the shooter's deceased, the investigation is we're not done. Um and so the impediments to finding these individuals and you highlight a great point. We had two huge tragedies in the span of days in this country. Um the school shooting in Evergreen, Colorado being one of them. Um and proactively going out onto these social media platforms which are so large is our biggest impediment and we need to rely on the service providers. There's actual legislation, I can't remember the name of it, that's up for renewal which will

And I think at the end of the month, which gives service providers the ability to report that information in from their end without liability. We need that to continue because while the FBI has so many people and the police are great at doing it, there's just too many platforms to cover down on.

Well, I I appreciate that, uh, Director Patel, and I think we're certainly I'm I'm interested in continuing this conversation because I think the reporting suggests, uh, that this that there's a pattern and that ultimately, you know, we want to make sure that law enforcement is able to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening in the future. I have a question. It's not meant as a gotcha question, so it just frame it there. U, but it is regards in regards to some reporting around a periodic transaction report that you had filed earlier. a periodic transaction report that you had filed earlier this year. So this is in July pursuant to the ethical obligations as a senior executive official on you remember filing that in July. Yes. Yeah. That's so in that report as best as I can surmise you disclosed that you devested you know $100,000 or more in a variety of different stocks which I presume was pursuant to the ethics agreement that you negotiated with the department of justice. In that same report, there's a disclosure regarding purchases of two different uh well rather two different transactions. So between 15 to $50,000 in a national coffee house chain and between $50 to $100,000 in a semiconductor company on May 9th and May 12th. Are those transactions that you're doing personally or are these through a stock broker or are these transactions that you're handling yourself?

So how they happen is I submit proposals under DOJ guidance to say hey we I would like to trade this or that and they run their review and the FBI runs a review and then they come back and say yes or no and then I make the transaction.

Is there a reason that you decided to make the purchases into those two companies? Uh generally speaking, I before I got this job, I was um you know trading stocks but not a lot like most people and I just follow certain industries you know and um I thought they would be a good investment.

So my the reason why I ask right because you had devested in other companies and I presume that that wasn't because there were actual conflicts. It's just that you wanted to avoid an appearance of impropriety. It was both both but not all of the companies were conflicts. whatever they make invested from. I don't make the call, they make the call.

Sure. I guess my point would be the reason why I ask this, why I said it's not a gotcha question. I have for years led an effort here in Congress to try to ban members of Congress, senior executive officials from trading stocks. And it's bipartisan in nature. We're working really hard to get that done, Republicans and Democrats. And you can understand I think given your role, given the nature of the position that you hold as the leader of the largest law enforcement agency in our country that devesting entirely, not you know doing day trading now I think would be something that would be in the interest of the American people. So I just would hope you would consider that and that moving forward that perhaps not purchasing stocks in individual companies I would think would be something that would be uh worth pursuing.

Gentlemen, gentleman's time. If you I'm happy to give the witness an opportunity to Thank you. I'll work with you on it.

Gentleman from uh Alabama is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director Patel, for being here today. Newly declassified documents confirm that the intelligence community under President Barack Obama knowingly relied on unverified and fraudulent evidence to manufacture a false claim that Russia in fact meddled in the 2016 election. Is there more to be done to uncover the depths and origins of the Russian collusion hoax?

There is, and we're doing it. Why should Americans still care about that? Director Patel, everybody wants to talk about a weaponized bureaucracy. And when we put out the facts about a weaponized bureaucracy, not because I said so, but because we found the FISA documents, because we found the 302s and the 1023s, then it becomes a political football. My job is to continue to put out that information and let the American public read it for themselves when I'm lawfully able to do so. And that's been my commitment on any subject, Russia gate or otherwise. Wherever the law allows me to do it, I will do it.

You know, the one when I first came in in 2020, the number one concern as I was doing town halls was the weaponization of the government against the American citizen. And so, are there things that you're doing structural reforms that implementing so that the FBI cannot be weaponized again, whether it's against President Trump or future elected president?

Well, it shouldn't be weaponized against anyone. And the structural reform is simple. If you're going to go after a political individual or someone seeking political office, there has to be a grounded basis in law and fact to open up a criminal investigation. And if there's not, the investigation isn't even opened. And I've also gone back and reviewed other cases that were opened in prior administrations related to public officials, and we've closed a number of them because we felt that some of these actions were weaponized on either side of the aisle. I felt it wholly inappropriate for the FBI to be playing umpire and referee amongst these decision makers when there was no factual or legal basis to continue those investigations. So, I shut them down. And I think that's so desperately needed because we need to restore trust in law enforcement and certainly in the DOJ and the FBI so that the American people don't fear the very government that uh that's supposed to protect them. And so, thank you for doing that.

On August 11th, you released to the committee documents concerning leak investigations that began in 2017. Do you believe these leaks were accidental or were they intentional in order to influence public opinion against President Trump?

When I could publicly make a final decision on that, either through a recommendation of charging that the DOJ makes or findings that I have, I'm able to do so, but they're still not complete.

Why did the FBI under Director Comey want to undermine the Trump administration?

I don't know. You'll have to ask him. think it might have been political.

How will Director Comey be held accountable for his leaks in classified information concerning the Russian collusion hoax?

Well, anyone doesn't matter what you did before or what seat you were in. If you leak classified information, that's illegal and we will investigate it fully. And if we can bring enough evidence to recommend charges to the Department of Justice, we will. But as you know, in these leak investigations, it's very difficult to produce the information necessary. We know leaks happen. They literally happen every week. It's one of the most destructive things to this country. Media receives classified information beneficial to one side or the other. I'm a fan of none of it and I want to shut all of it down. Um, and we need to bring some real cases to deter individuals from doing that and that's my focus.

Well, it's without commenting on him, the FISA has been released and the dossier was in the FISA. It was in four FISAs, so I'll let the public decide.

Well, former director Brennan actually denied repeatedly that he pushed for the steel dossier to be included in the ICA. Is that true?

did not I'll let his testimony speak for itself, but then deputy director Andy McCabe also testified to the House Intelligence Committee, which has now been declassified, that were there no steel dossier, there would have been no FISA.

From California is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, director, for coming here today. And actually, thank you for your response uh to my colleague from New York who asked you earlier about violent extremism. And you said that there is violent extreme ideology on both sides. And I think you um actually alluded to that same statement yesterday in the Senate. So I too have some questions I'd like to ask you. These are not gotcha questions and um just deny please what you deem to be false. So, Dylan Rof, uh, who followed white supremacist propaganda, murdered nine black parishioners in Charleston in 2015. Do you deny this?

I'm sorry. Um, Dylan Ruth. Roof. ROF, can you give me uh some more information? Uh, you're head of the FBI. You probably know this. If you don't know, that's fine. I can You can give me a reminder. I've got a lot in front of me. It was national news. Uh, Robert Bowowers murdered 11 Jewish worshippers in Pittsburgh in 2018.

I do remember that. And it was the deadliest anti-semitic attack. So, do you you admit that that happened?

I'm not saying the other thing didn't happen. I'm just asking for a little information. Patrick Cusus, who posted a manifesto about a Hispanic invasion, walked into a Walmart in El Paso, Texas in 2019, and began firing. He murdered 23 people that day and the youngest was 15. Um, do you admit or deny that that happened?

I'll take your presentation as accurate.

All right. Well, I have to say all of these cases have been adjudicated. As I said, the are not gotcha questions. These incidents were national news. Um, so and as director of the FBI, you have access to all of this information. So, in 2022, Payton Grenen walked into a supermarket in a black neighborhood in Buffalo, New York, and started shooting. He murdered 10 people that day. And on September 10th, uh, your friend Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Tyler Robinson has been taken into custody and charged. But also on that day, Desmond Holly, a 16-year-old white male, shot and injured two students at a high school in Colorado before killing himself. And according to the Anti-Defamation League, he had a fascination with mass shootings and white supremacy. So, do you admit to deny these facts?

Those happened.

Okay. Your predecessor, former FBI director Christoph Chris Christopher Ray, said that one of the most dangerous concerns is that racially motivated violent extremism, especially white supremacists, has been the biggest chunk of our domestic terrorism cases and is responsible for the most lethal attacks over the last decade. Do you do you admit or deny a that he said this?

I'll let the refer to reflect that whatever he said was what he said.

All right. And uh do you agree that there is racially motivated crimes being committed in America?

Yes. Yes. Especially white supremacists, which is the biggest chunk of our domestic terrorism.

I'm glad that you you said this. So last week, uh President Trump was asked if there were extremists on both the left and the right. Uh he was actually asked this by Fox and Friends and his exact words were, "I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime. The radicals on the left are the problem and they're vicious and they're horrible and they're politically savvy. Do you agree with the president?"

I don't speak for the president. The president speaks for himself.

Do you agree with the president?

I don't

On what matter?

On the question that I just asked.

Do you agree with his statement about the radical left that there's ideology that's driving violence on both sides?

Yes, that's what he acknowledged.

No, he he didn't. He didn't. But I'm I'm glad that you're saying that and actually creating some separation between you and the president. And I'm glad that you literally acknowledging that there is violent extremism on both sides. What's interesting is that the research arm of the Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice, do you know what that is?

I'm familiar with them.

Okay, great. It is the research arm of the Department of Justice and it published an article in 2024 devoted to domestic radi radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism. I I I have it. It's interesting that it's no longer on the website. It has been scrubbed. But I ask these questions because what makes a strong qualified director of any business, of any household, of the FBI, what makes a reputable prosecutor is not lamp loyalty, but a commitment to the creed that evidence is agnostic and that the evidence will lead you to making the right decisions. And your job, no one's job is to like the data or the evidence. It is to collect it. That is how you gain trust. And Mr. Chair, I would like to enter into the record if I may. White supremacist group stands by racist ideology with unanimous consent. Without objection. Dylan Roof, the radicalization of the alt-right and ritual ritualized racial violence. Without objection. Thank you. Another article, how Robert Bowers went from conservative to white nationalist. I'd like to enter that into the record with me. Without objection. Patrick Cusus believed he was fulfilling Trump's wishes in El Paso attack, his attorney said. Like to enter into the record without objection. Buffalo shooting. How faright killers are radicalized online? I'd like to enter that into the record. Without objection. Evergreen high school shooters online activity reveals fascination with mass shootings, white supremacy. Like to enter that into the record. Without objection. murder and extremism in the United States in 2024. A report by the Anti-Defamation League. I'd like to introduce Justice Journal focusing on domestic radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism. I'd like to enter that into the record without objection. And lastly, the libertarian think tank Kato and their analysis on violent extremism um and the right rising in extremist acts. I'd like to enter that into the record without objection. Thank you and I yield back.

Gentle lady yields back. Gentle lady from Wyoming is recognized. Uh just very quickly, um Director Patel, thank you for being here, for your service to this country and for the transparency that you have brought to the FBI and for the American people. Uh transparency that was absolutely non-existent in the Biden administration and FBI. I believe that you might have been asked earlier about whether you had had an opportunity to visit with any of Epstein's legal counsel. Were you asked that question earlier?

I I think so.

Okay. Um, one of the legal councils or legal fixtures for Mr. Epstein was Stacy Plascat, the Democrat delegate to Congress from the Virgin Islands. So perhaps for those on the other side who are interested in talking to Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys, they could sure visit with one of their own colleagues. Um, I want to focus on something that I think is very important that has not been addressed enough today and that is related to the consequences of the Biden open border. One consequence of the Biden border crisis is the impact that it continues to have on our tribal communities with the um cartels taking advantage of our open borders, our the Mexican drug cartels uh by infiltrating our reservations and bringing violence, drugs, murder, trafficking, and more. Last year when I questioned the attorney general Garland about what the DOJ was doing to protect these communities, he simply deflect deflected responsibility and said that Congress had not appropriated sufficient resources uh for them to be able to protect our tribal communities. Mr. Patel, what is the Trump FBI doing to counter the drug cartel inf infiltration and other violent crime targeting our Native American communities?

Thank you. It only took more than half of this proceeding to talk about one of the priorities that the FBI has, which is crimes on tribal lands. Every single crime that we have been talking about, whether it's predicting, child predators, human trafficking, narot traffickers, murder, they all happen on tribal lands as well. And I've said since the beginning, it is a priority, which is why we launched Operation Not forgotten on tribal lands. And I'm the first FBI director to meet with the staff and tribal leaders here in Washington DC and elsewhere and invited them into my office and headquarters to see them because I need engagement with tribal leadership and I need our police and FBI agents to be engaging with tribal leadership otherwise we're not going to break through. We have 1,900 Indian country cases open right now. We've got 600 indictments this year alone. We cannot forget tribal lands. Every single one of those people lives in the United States of America and it is an absolute priority to protect them and their children just as it is anyone else.

It was a decision by him not to do so. That's not my decision.

At the end of August, the US attorney and FBI announced that nearly 100 personnel representing members of the Safe Trails task force operated near Wyoming's Wind River Reservation to assist with reducing drug trafficking and illegal guns. Director Patel, you have routinely stated that it is your mission to partner with and strengthen local and state law enforcement partners. How does the task force and other FBI efforts bring tribal law enforcement into this process?

The major problem with tribal lands is the sheer tyranny of geography and the amount of coverage that they have on land versus the personnel they have to do it. So what we've done is constantly surge resources to tribal lands across this country on a 30, 60, 90day rotating basis, reporting back to us saying who needs more. And what we found is that most of these lands can be assisted by our counter UAS program, our drone capabilities, and we're going to do it because what's happening is the Mexican drug cartels are literally flying overhead, dropping their cargo, their narcotics onto this land where no one's looking, and then it's being disseminated to children, to youth, to adults on that land and killing them. And we got to stop it before it gets dropped off.

I think so.

Wonderful. Thank you. and I uh I do appreciate the work that you've done in this regard. I was previously the chairman of the subcommittee on Indian and insular insular affairs with the natural resources committee and safety and security on our reservations and for our tribal members has been one of our priorities, one of my priorities and I very much appreciate the work that the FBI has done. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help you. And with that, I yield back.

I will ma'am. Gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from Georgia is recognized. Thank you, um, chairman, and thank you for coming in today, Mr. Patel. In the past few months, the country has experienced a a string of horrific high-profile attacks that have been mo motivated by racial hatred or political ideology. Shooter attacked the CDC headquarters, firing hundreds of rounds and killing a police officer. An arsonist set fired to the Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro's residence, with the governor and his family actually inside. Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated earlier this year. Clark and Charlie Kirk was murdered last week. Bomb threats have been made against H.B.CU and the DNC. And just the list goes on and on. I only have just a few minutes today, so I don't want to take a lot of time to go into all the countless and devastating violent crimes and incidents that have happened at our schools or on our streets and in our communities that have just been happening all year long. Mr. Patel, just yes or no. Is this type of political violence ever acceptable in your eyes?

No.

Our number one priorities are protecting the homeland and international terrorism and crushing violent crime. And domestic terrorism sort of interlays between both of those.

Okay. So, well then I'm glad that you're giving us the right answer, but unfortunately your actions kind of tell a different story. Earlier this year, you granted the ranks of the FBI's domestic terrorism operation section. This is the section of the F FBI that is most directly responsible for addressing political violence in our country by preventing attacks from occurring and effectively responding to them if they do. The agents in this section are the ones who stopped an individual stockpiling weapons, who plan to attack schools and churches in Florida and seized bombs made by an ISIS sympathizer in New Orleans. And instead of ensuring that this section has all the resources that it needs at a time when its mission is critical, you fired its decorated veteran FBI agents who have served their country proudly under Republican and both Democratic presidents and you scrapped the tools that they develop to fight domestic terrorism, including the national domestic terrorism incident database.

I mean, most of that is just not true. We have 1,700 current DT managed programs. We're up 300% in the amount of cases we brought against nihilistic, violent extremists, including 764, wishing to harm our children. The FBI and the men and women are getting after that problem set more than ever because I've unleashed them to do so. And any situation that these tragic occurrences across the country are somehow singularly my fault or disgusting because that watershed goes down. Mr. Patel, I'm going to reclaim my time. Mr. They are not responsible for it. I'm happy to work with you to get them what they need.

Gentle lady controls the time. Unanimous consent request. She'll state a request. Thank you very much. Into the record, an article from Ruters tile FBI scales back staffing tracking of domestic terrorism probe sources say thank you very much. Without objection. I appreciate that. So Mr. Patel and it isn't just the domestic terrorism operation section. Under your watch, agents are fully diverting their attention to these anti-immigrant and city takeover operations, leaving our children vulnerable to dangerous networks of online predators, both domestic and international. You pulled more than 120 FBI agents from their normal duties to operate sobriety checks and conduct traffic stops, exposing the FBI's fleet of unmarked cars, and thereby making it harder for the FBI to combat violent criminal gangs, foreign intelligence services, and drug traffickers in the process.

That's simply not true. If we were not able to do two things at one time, how would we be record 23,000 violent felons have been arrested belongs to the gentle twice as many as last gentle from Georgia. Thank you very much. And this request basically is uh it is an article from Ruters which quotes law enforcement officers familiar with agents who once covered child exploitation cases but now focus on immigration child exclusive thousands of agents diverted to trump immigration track down. Mr. Patel in the short time I have left your tenure as director of FBI has been somewhat problematic. Americans are left safe left definitely less uh less safe under your watch. You have gutted the FBI FBI's ability to keep safe uh from domestic terrorism. You have sent FBI agents to conduct traffic stops and round up hardworking immigrants who pose no danger to public safety. People even President Trump referred to as good longtime workers. Your job is to protect and serve the American public. Spend your time protecting heinous individuals and using the FBI to serve as a political circus. You at times have appeared unequipped to deserve better and I yield.

Gentle lady yields back. May I respond?

Sure can. Simply put, what is it? Are we failing? If we're failing, how are we arresting 23,000 violent felons, twice as many as this time last year. Are we failing? Because if we're failing, how are we seizing 1500 kilograms of meth? 25% increase from last year. Are we failing? because we captured four top 10 FBI most wanted from around the world in seven months. That's more than the entirety of the last administration. Are we failing because we put 1500 child predators in prison? Are we failing because we dismantled 300 human trafficking networks? Which is it? You don't like me? That's fine. But don't you dare disparage the men and women of the FBI that are producing record results in historic fashion to protect this country. They are kicking ass for America and they're going to continue to do so.

And we appreciate your leadership. The gentle lady from Florida is recognized. When I was home recently, I met with the agents leading the Tampa office of the FBI, and I saw what they're focused on in my community, stopping drug traffickers, rescuing children from exploitation, fighting cyber crime, protecting us from acts of terrorism, foreign and domestic. And I know from my time as a federal prosecutor and a judge that this work by the bureau doesn't make headlines, but it is happening every single day. At the top, accountability is necessary. Transparency is critical. But today, we've seen an effort not just to diminish, but to distort the work of Director Patel and the agents he leads. If we really care about transparency and about truth, then what we owe to the American people is this reality that thousands of dedicated professionals at the FBI wake up every single day thinking not about themselves but about this country and keeping every single one of us and our children safe from harm. And Director Patel, I would like to hear from you the facts about what the FBI is doing and your efforts to fight crime. Director Patel, isn't it correct that since January 20th, 2025, the FBI has made over 25,000 immigration related arrests, including 350 members of Train Daywa and 195 members of MS-13?

Those numbers are accurate. The train numbers are up over 350% from the year before.

And during that same period, hasn't the FBI seized over 66,000 kilos of cocaine, 6,000 kilos of meth, and 1500 kilos of fentanyl?

Uh, not to be nitpicky, but it's 89,000 kilos of cocaine and 7,300 kg of meth.

And isn't it also true that the FBI Tampa division's Panama Stress Strike Force specifically seized nearly 67,000 kilos of cocaine valued at more than $1.6 billion from illicit maritime vessels.

One of our best operations out of the port of Tampa and I was down there in South Florida when Panax did their work.

Director Patel, since October 7th, 2023 Hamas attack, the FBI has been a co-leader of the Joint Tax Force October 7th. Isn't it correct that this task force is actively working to bring justice for victims and to prevent terrorist infiltration at our borders?

Yes, ma'am.

Since January 20th, hasn't the FBI arrested 59 foreign intelligence operatives for spying or smuggling dangerous material into the United States?

Yes, we have. And that's on track to be more than 25% than ever before.

And the FBI has also been leading operations against major cyber threat actors, including those from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Isn't that right?

A 17% increase from year to date last year.

All of law enforcement relies on our sieges operation out of West Virginia and all and what that does is allow 19,000 agencies to come in and say, "Hey, does this guy have a criminal history? Hey, is this an illegal firearm? Do we have a DNA hit like we did in these recent um um assassinations? That's what the FBI brings to bear because local and state law enforcement agencies don't have that capability and we're doing it 247 365. Sees does not close for one minute.

Gentle yields back. The gentle lady from Mr. Chairman, I have a couple unanimous content. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. In response to Mr. Mattel's making the remarks that um that maybe our colleagues are disparaging the men and women of the FBI, I'd like to intro into the record three unanimous consent requests. One is uh entitled FBI is using polygraphs to test a uh officials loyalty. Um the second is Cash Patel knowingly broke law when firing top officials lawsuit alleges published by NBC. And the third is FBI forces out more leaders including ex director who fought Trump demand for January 6 agents names without objection.

Gentle from Vermont's recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. Director Patel thank you for being with us today. Appreciate your time. Uh, let me say at the top, political violence should have no place in this country. And I strongly, unequivocally condemn the killing of Charlie Kirk last week. And this is exactly the kind of case that warrants a swift and thorough investigation by the FBI. What shouldn't be happening, however, is this administration's seeming attempt to exploit Mr. Kirk's death within minutes of this horrible, horrible assassination, dividing us even further without knowing enough about the killer's complicated, confused political ideology and the extent of his motivation. And this week, Vice President Vance claimed that this is quote an extremely destructive movement of left-wing extremism and said that quote, "It's part of the reason why Charlie was killed." He pledged to go after organizations on the left. But Director Patel, it was just three months ago that Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota House Speaker, and her husband Mark were shot to death in their home in the middle of the night by a self-identified right-wing extremist and Trump supporter. When that assassination happened, the FBI released a written statement denouncing the killings and pledging to hold the killer accountable. And I thank the bureau for that. It was clear, concise, to the point. But when you compare that statement to the over 50 mentions of the Charlie Kirk killing and just four for the Hortman's on accounts affiliated with the FBI in your personal account, it appears to many Americans that you're valuing some lives more than others. And that's painful. And this is what I'm hearing from my constituents. So, I just want to convey that to you. And the vice president didn't even call on right-wing organizations to tone down their rhetoric after that horrific killing in Minnesota. And he never once spoke about dismantling conservative institutions. This week, when the president was asked by a reporter about Speaker Hortman, he claimed he didn't even know who she was. One of the most high profofile assassinations of an elected official in recent memory, and the president claims to know nothing about it, hasn't even heard of it. was absolutely devastating for her colleagues and for her family and I think we all can agree in this room that we have to stop this political violence. So my first question to you is director Patel what is your plan as director of the FBI to turn down the temperature especially in light of the fact that it seems like members of the administration um are reacting to political violence based on party affiliation. What's your plan?

I can only speak for myself and the guy and what we are doing is I think I mentioned it earlier we're following the money because whatever attack you are describing and they are all dispicable equally so people need money to operate people need money to conduct these attacks to conduct these invest in investigations and so what we are doing is finding the people that supported this infrastructure system because even when you say there's a lone quote unquote lonewolf actor He's not truly a lonewolf actor. Something happened along the way. I agree.

And so can I just just because we have such little time, are you making a commitment right now to follow where the evidence goes in investigating whether it's violence on the left or the right? Because over the last 10 years, when you look at the ideology, I want to follow up on what my colleague from California said. When you look at the data, you look at the Anti-Defamation League data, 96% of ideological motivated killings were committed by the right-wing. Um, when you look at the Institute of Justice report that she u cited, it's five times the number that um five times the number of far-left extremist incidents are perpetrated by faright. And it's been reported, and she mentioned this, that as of September 12th, 2025, just 2 days after Charlie Kirk's killing, that the DOJ removed that report from the DOJ website. That's why Americans are concerned that there seems to be a separate system of justice that if you are a Republican that and you are attacked, you will get the full weight and authority of the FBI in this administration. But if you are somebody serving in the Minnesota state legislature and you are assassinated in your home that the response is different. And I think to ignore the threats from the right or try to do a both end when there are multiple instances when it's overwhelmingly coming from the right. This is a disservice because Americans want to know that whoever they are, whatever their political affiliation, that the response is going to be the same and it is going to be done with the same diligence. And I'm wondering if you will commit to me right now that you will be a voice right now standing up to those voices in the administration that are adding adding to the violent rhetoric right now. That's what I'm asking you. Will you commit to this?

The gentleman from Texas is recognized. Thank you, sir. Director Patel, thank you for being here today and most importantly, thank you for restoring trust and faith in the FBI, which has been severely eroded under the Biden administration. Thank you for your service and your continued service in this capacity. On April 7th, 2025, Charlie posted on X, "As assassination culture is spreading from the left. 48% of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. 55% say the same about Donald Trump. In California activists are naming ballot measures after Luigi Man. The left is being whipped into a violent frenzy and setback. Whether losing an election or losing a court case justifies a maximally violent response. End quote. And unfortunately for Charlie, that reaction also came when they couldn't win a debate on a college campus. You cannot be intellectually honest and say that this problem is on both sides. It's not just what happened to President Trump. It's also what just happened to Charlie. We've gotten to a point in America where violence is encouraged. When you have a former president of the United States that opens up his campaign in 2019, that's Joe Biden, by saying that his opponent is a quote existential threat to this country. Houston, we have a problem. People that you disagree with are not existential threats. They are not Nazis. They are not fascist. They are not racist. They are not deplorable. They are not irredeemable. They are your fellow Americans who have a different perspective on how government should want should run and what government should look like. Whether or not we should have strong sovereign borders. Whether or not we should have safe communities. Whether or not we should have places to worship our God and not worry about being shot. Whether or not we live in communities and cities that are not overwhelmed by drugs and crime. whether or not we have two genders and whether or not we have common sense in our policies and our values. And people that believe these things are not existential threats. I happen to be one of these people that believes all of the above. And as someone that served this country in combat, I can assure you I am not an existential threat to this country because I swore to protect her. Also want to point out, how many cities have you seen burned to the ground since Charlie Kirk's death? zero. No summer of love, no riots, no nothing, no looting, no killing, none. We simply gathered and prayed for his soul, his family, and this country because that's exactly what we represent. And while we might be angry, this righteous anger will carry on Charlie's message and legacy. I want everybody to know something very simple. Charlie is not dead because of what he said. He is dead because people listened. My time is limited. So I have a few questions for you, sir. And again, thank you very much for being here. I really appreciate your time and your service. Um, in your experience in the FBI, have you noticed a precipitous rise in political violence and other associated crimes that you have been investigating so far this year? And if so, is this trend in motive left-wing or right-wing violence?

I could always speak generally, sir. There is too much political violence and it has been a precipitated rise on on on too many fronts.

How do we solve this?

We solve this by giving the FBI more authorities to go into and work with the private sector. There are too many online platforms. There are too many social media platforms. There are too many gaming platforms. There are too many places for people from America and around the world to get together without their parents knowing anything about it, without their school teachers knowing anything about it and infection infesting the minds of our children and infecting them with radical ideology and with that is the root cause of these problems and we must tackle it. It is not a 1950s America anymore. In 2025, the cyerspace needs to be tackled.

Thank you. Switching gears. When your pred when your predecessor sat right there in that seat a couple years last year in a committee hearing, I asked him a very detailed question about Matthew Thomas Krooks, the shooter responsible for the assassination attempt on President Trump's life. I did get an answer from Chris Ray that day and I submitted written questions to the FBI and into the record of this committee and I'm going to resubmit those questions today because I think we are still wait awaiting answers to those questions. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit some for the record, please. I'd like to ask you, sir, and the FBI under your leadership, would you please respond to these questions and can you commit to doing that as soon as the trial is over? Thank you very much. I will end with this. Charlie Kirk is not dead because of what he said. Charlie Kirk is dead because people listened. He set up a tent that said, "Prove me wrong and exercise his First Amendment right." That's all he did. and we will continue to do so in this country in order to preserve this constitutional republic. With that, I yield back.

Thank you, gentlemen. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Florida is recognized. U Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U before I begin, I want to caution my colleagues on, you know, one-sided violence in this country. We just heard that there were no riots on the right. We're we're literally sitting in the building where there was a giant riot by supporters of the president, the right. We also heard that only leftists, okay, have said that Trump is a Nazi. In 2016, the current vice president of the United States said Trump is either a cynical or he's America's Hitler. And so this is the problem. Like I don't want to have to say this garbage, but you want me to sit here and get painted with one brush the whole left? No. No. There are extremes on the left and there are extremes on the right and we collectively should tackle that. But to come here and just look at us and say we all support what's going on in the extremes is why we can't solve anything in this building. director, let me say first, thank you for for being here and uh my condolences on the loss uh of your friend. Um and I'm happy to hear that you want to do more on the social media platforms. Okay, it's crazy what's going on on the social media platforms. There are so many conspiracy theories on what's going on with Charlie Kirk. Israel assassinated him, right? There are conspiracy theories about your personal social life. all day. It is totally rampant. Big names on the right, Candace Owens, right? Talking about how the what's been released as far as the dialogue between the perpetrator and his roommate is manufactured by the FBI, manufactured by the administration. It is totally rampant, allowing foreign governments to just perpetrate these platforms. all of these bots all of the time to weaponize Americans. You see what's going on here? This is a byproduct of all of that. What's going on in the streets is a byproduct of all of that. What's happening is you see people celebrate Luigi Manion is a byproduct of all of that. And so if we want to do something, then we should talk about section 230. We should talk about how we're going to make sure that we don't let foreign governments poison our children's mind. And so I will work with you on that, director. I'll work with you on 2:30 any day. No problem. So now that was the good part. I I want to take your attention back a second. Okay. Breaking news. Cash Patel is nominated to be the FBI director. Dan Bonino is nominated to be the number two at the FBI. MAGA celebrates, rejoices, bells are ringing out. the team Patel Banino 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 names 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 says there's no list. Oh no, no phase two. phase 2 binders never happen. 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 the index has been released and the number of people involved in that trafficking operation were charged um in 2018 other than Epstein and Gelain Maxwell. Your testimony in the Senate and 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 the other names that weren't 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 to 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? Will you 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 signal. It's 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. Oh. on my over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your your diligence. Gentleman's time is expired.

Chairman, I'll recognize the gentleman from California. Uh, director Patel, as you know, my uh uh state, California, is uh home to the worst public infrastructure failure in US history. Uh known as California uh highspeed rail, although the name is probably a misnomer. Um earlier uh this year I joined uh your counterpart uh at the Department of Transportation, Sean Duffy, uh doing a compliance review of the federal money the state has received and the outcome was that the state has not complied with the terms of its billions of dollars in funding because it hasn't actually built anything. And so that federal funding uh has now been cut off. But uh a lot of us in California still have questions as to where all the money went. We're 17 years in to this project uh and absolutely nothing has been built. Not a single uh bit of track has been laid. There are no stations, there are no passengers. Uh and the uh the plan initially was to have the whole thing LA to San Francisco done uh by 2020 at a cost of $33 billion. Uh yet here we are in 2025, nothing has been built. And according to the New York Times, not the track, the project won't even be completed this century and the total cost is now estimated to be over 130 billion. So, I just wanted to ask you, do you think this is something that bears scrutiny or can you confirm whether there's any kind of investigation going on uh at the FBI?

Um, we've also, uh, you know, been talking some today about, uh, the issues that occurred at the border during the Biden administration. Uh, and, uh, you might not agree with, uh, your predecessor, uh, on everything, but, you probably would agree with some of the statements he made in testimony before this and other committees uh, raising alarms uh, about uh, the risk of terrorism from illegal border crossings. Uh since becoming director, uh have you gotten uh some insight into uh how well calibrated those warnings were and what is the status of that risk now?

I don't have any additional details in terms of how many people are being trafficked into this country especially um unaccompanied missing children. That number has drastically reduced because the coyotes that smuggle these children uh for their criminal activity are the same ones that smuggle in narcotics or the same one that traffic older women. They're all interconnected and because of the sealing of the southern border by this administration that has come to a near halt. That is a very important point that we have seen far fewer victims of human trafficking uh because we've finally prioritized border security. Um and by the way, you have children who are getting rescued because of the immigration enforcement activities that unfortunately some politicians uh in my state are trying to stop, thereby stopping those kids uh from getting rescued.

No, I think it's fairly consistent. Thank you. I gentleman yields back to the lady from Texas recognized.

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 the gentleman from South Carolina.

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 are 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 you. Thank Thank you, director, for that. And uh we appreciate your service. We appreciate the results speak for themselves, I think, pretty plainly, and your commitment not only to results, but to to transparency. So, we we do appreciate that. Uh director, who is John Durham? Uh he was appoint a former federal prosecutor, United States attorney and ultimately appointed uh special counsel in the first Trump administration. Correct. And and what what there was a a a document that he released in his findings called the Durham report. What were what was the Durham report briefly and what were the findings very briefly?

It was every special counsel that's appointed produces a report to the attorney general. Special counsel's Durham report largely focused on Crossfire Hurricane and included extensive summary findings in classified and and unclassified manner and we released the classified version finally declassifying it for the American public in this committee. Correct. And you released that in July of this year. I think so. Yes, sir. Uh, isn't it true that in the in the UNC the classified Durham annex, as it's referred to, uh, that in 2016, the Obama administration obtained intelligence information from a source contained in two separate memoranda, one in January of 2016 and one in March. Uh, the two memoranda described confidential conversations between DNC chair Debbie Washerman Schultz and two individuals from the Soros Open Society Foundation. Isn't that true?

I believe so. Okay. Uh, isn't it also found in the report that in March of 2016, the memorandum also included references to the same Obama effort to shut down the Clinton investigation, but additionally outlined a plan to falsely connect Trump to Russia. Isn't that in the Durham annex?

I think it's in more than the Durham report, but yes. U the memo also stated in part that quote, "The Democrat party's opposition is focused on discrediting Trump among other things. Uh the Clinton staff with the support from special services is preparing scandalous revel revelations of business connections between Trump and the Russian mafia. Isn't that also found in the now unclassified Durham annex?

I believe so, sir. According to the Durham annex, uh based on analysis and uh translation of the intelligence, FBI analysts believed that special services could either mean the FBI or CIA uh or the Trump dossier author Christopher Steel. Isn't that in the Durham annex?

I believe so, sir. When the Obama administration received intelligence in March of 2018, Fusion GPS was preparing open-source opposition research regarding purported ties between Trump and Russians. The research was paid uh by the Clinton's campaign and the DNC. Isn't that open source? And also in the Durham annex, I believe both. Okay. And so in in uh also in the Durham annex which I found interesting was the uh potential campaign plan uh was shared with high ranking career officials at DOJ. Isn't that in the Durham annex?

I believe so sir. The Durm annex uh describes that in July of 2016 uh emails allegedly between Leonard uh Bernardo, senior vice president of George Soros's Open Society Foundation, uh concluded um or uh included data providing specificity on the Clinton plan in an attempt to smear Donald Trump by falsely linking him to Russia. Isn't that in the Durham report?

I believe so. And so briefly, this additional evidence that you've uh unclassified and and released to the American public, what does that purport to show or or augment about the Durham report uh that you can share with the American people?

Put simply, that the FBI was weaponized against a political campaign? Yes, sir. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The I have UC's. Gentle lady from Texas is recognized for unanimous consent.

Yes. Um first one is Russia's ghostriter hacker group takes aim at German election. This is from Politico. Objection. The next one is director of um national intelligence 30 days until election 2024 which specifically states that our assessments about activities and goals of Russia, Iran, and China are unchanged from earlier election um security updates and that they were meddling without objection. And I've got three more. The last three are that um how Russia is using artificial intelligence to interfere in elections. Moscow's attempts to interfere in US and other elections are nothing new though their tactics and strategy are constantly evolving. Objection. The next one is Russian interference coming soon to an election near you. Russia pursues a systemic strategy of undermining elections and influencing public opinion in the West, EU, and NATO countries must recognize that Moscow often acts through agents within their own borders and build resilience to such interference. What's the source? This one is carnegie endowment.org. Okay. Without objection. Thank you.

The gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman and Director Patel, I'm glad that I'm going a little out of order here because I'm going to pursue some of the things that you were just talking to Mr. Fry about and remind you about your confirmation hearing. At your confirmation hearing in January, you said under oath, and I quote, "There will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no uh ret retributive actions taken by the FBI should I be confirmed. And in your written response to the Senate questionnaire, you said, I quote, "Personnel decisions shall be based on performance and adherence to the law, and every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for case assignments." So I want to just go through a couple scenarios with you to get a sense of whether you think these are examples of politization of the FBI or making decisions based on the performance and adherence to the law?

So, first question, would hiring FBI agents, analysts, and supervisors from only one political party being politicization of the FBI or making personnel decisions based on performance and adherence to the law?

We don't ask FBI people applicants where their political parties are. Uh uh Mr. Patel, do you ask FBI applicants who they voted for? We the FBI does not. Um are you aware that in the lawsuit um that Mr. Driscoll filed against you and the FBI he was asked who he voted for since that lawsuit has been filed and it's on lowing litigation.

I'm not able to comment. Well, but it also means that you just said that what happened in his situation didn't happen. So we will go on to the next question. Let me ask you an even easier one. Does firing agents for working on the cases that they were assigned to and that the president didn't like is that politization of the FBI or making personnel decisions based on performance and adherence to the law?

The FBI doesn't terminate anyone based on case assignments alone. Has the FBI ever been sued by somebody who felt that they were terminated based on case assignments in the entire history of the FBI?

I'm sure they have. No, since your tenure, I'm sure there's ongoing litigation. Yes. In fact, there is ongoing litigation. And in fact, people have been asked who they voted for. And in fact, you are running an FBI for the president of the United States rather than the people of the United States because my questions were not hypotheticals. They are the things you have done during your tenure. And according to a lawsuit filed last week by long-term FBI agents, you fired former acting director Brian Driscoll. He had served with the bureau for nearly 20 years, earned a medal of honor, medal medal of valor for bravery during the dangerous ISIS raid, and had a wealth of crisis response experience and led the FBI's critical incident response group. When the Trump administrations interviewed Mr. Driscoll for that role, they interrogated him about his political leanings and who he voted for in the last five elections. questions Mr. Driscoll refused to answer because those types of questions impermissibly politicized the FBI. You also fired Steve Jensen, who served the FBI for nearly two decades and ran critical terrorism, counter intelligence, and organized crime operations, whom you you once described as embodying what the American public demands of the FBI. But he was fired be took because he took part in investigating crimes committed on January 6th and Trump's MAGA base lambasted you online for keeping him at the FBI. So he's no longer at the FBI. You also fired a decorated combat veteran with decades of experience in the bureau, Special Agent Walter Jardia, because he worked on the investigation into the Russian interference and the 2016 presidential election and helped investigate Trump's ally, Peter Navaro. Director Patel, it is very clear that you have flunked your own test. You put saving your job, which I actually believe you were being honest about during your confirmation hearings, over doing what's right for the FBI and the American people. That is not adherence to the law. Thank you and I yield back. Time of the gentle ladies expired.

Uh the chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Patel, it's great to have this opportunity. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your service. And I've got to say, one of the most disheartening components of the previous administration when I was working with law local law enforcement all over the state of North Carolina, all over the country, people rightfully did not really care about the inner work. 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. U 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 seven 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 Abbegate 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. Ask 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 24/7, 365, and on the opioid epidemic that is killing more than hundreds of thousands of people a year. We have seized 1,600 kg of fentinyl 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 fentinol producers, but the fentinol 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 fentinyl 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 in 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 have nearly a 20% increase in indictments arrests in seven 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 nealist 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 the 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. Aosta 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. Aassa allowed Mr. Epste 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 fiveminute rule the chair recognizes the gentleman from California Mr. director, delighted to have you here. You are a breath of fresh air. As you outlined, and I won't repeat it, uh the accomplishments you did so with the same resources as your predecessor roughly. Is that correct?

I believe so. Yes. And so how much of that uh has to do with taking people out of the backside of the FBI and moving them into the field into doing the job for which we primarily pay the FBI.

It's exactly what we needed done. Onethird of the FBI's workforce resided in the National Capital Region before I got there. One-third of the crimes do not happen in Washington DC. Not anymore. Not anymore. So 1,000 personnel of the FBI were deployed across this country on a permanent basis. And every single state in this union is getting a plus up, not a reduction, a plus up of 1811s of intel analysts and support staff. And that is why the crime rates are going down in record numbers. Thank you for doing that. and and you know it's it's perhaps the hardest thing for a bureaucrat to do is to lower the headcount around them that support them. And I appreciate your willingness to do it different than your predecessor. You you a lot of what you you uh covered earlier was the find the discovery and then the prosecution that is done by the DOJ. But I want to talk a little bit about the prevent side on the Charlie assassination, sir. No, no, no. On all of these. Okay. Okay, for example, and I'll bring it up before the Democrats bring it up, January 6th. January 6, we now know because of your find that in fact there were people involved who were not just observers but participants who in fact it's been alleged and I I personally believe in fact were part of promoting perhaps even uh the one woman who died encouraging her to walk through a door that led to her death. when you see that kind of activity and you know it was done under predecessors with full knowledge whether it's January 6th where embedded people cross the line or any other activity uh including obviously the the the Russian hoax that we're now dealing with up in you know front and center. My question to you is what can you or others do to prevent it from occurring again? Not on your watch but on future watches. How can we know that this won't happen again the moment you leave the FBI?

I'm wedded to aggressive constitutional oversight. Having been a House Congressional Staffer, I know that is an important part of securing our democracy. And the way we make it an everlasting enduring process is by showing the American people the results of what we are doing and the important work of this committee and putting it out to them so they can see government waste, fraud and abuse and then they can demand from our constituents and our electors that they want this process to continue. Last major question here. Some things are so sensitive that we both would agree they cannot be made public. Will you commit to this committee when it is too sensitive to dis to disclose that you would at least make it available for inc camera review by the chairman and ranking members or others designated?

I I have done that and I will continue to do that. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a breath of fresh air. This is the beginning of what we need. But my questions today uh for the director are ones in which I believe that we do need to codify by agreement or by statute if necessary the kind of openness and transparency that we're seeing from this administration the kind of discovery that's allowing us to do our oversight pro properly and I would hope that uh that that be the followup to this al obviously along with the attorney general and I yield back my 4 seconds.

Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from New York is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Director Patel. In the wake of the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump said, uh, quote, "Violence and murder are the tragic consequences of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and desable way possible." Close quote. I would note for the record that Donald Trump has famously dis demonized practically every person he has ever disagreed with and therefore using his own logic he has put their lives at risk. I should know about two weeks ago when I announced my my decision not to go when I announced my my decision not to seek re-election many people on both sides of the aisle including the chairman offered me well wishes and thanked me for my service. Donald Trump, on the other hand, took the True Social to call me a quote psychopathic nut job, among other things. Yesterday, I received a threatening note filled with anti-Semitic comments and hateful attacks that mimics some of the same language used by the president. I am sure many of us on this committee face similar threats every day. We have seen political assaults on both the left and the right. the attack on Charlie Kirk, the attempted assassination of the president, the murder of the Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House, the assault on Paul Pelosi, and the attack on the capital on January 6, for example. Director Patel, do you agree that there is political violence from both the left and the right?

There is too much political violence. You agree, yes or no, that there's violence?

There is too much political violence based on ideologies from either side. Do you from either side? Okay. Are you aware of the study by the Kato Institute, a well-known conservative group that found that 69% of the violence is from the right?

Say that again. I'm sorry. Are you aware the administration has used has threatened to use violence as an excuse to crack down on liberty and freedom of speech?

Nobody at the FBI is doing that. I didn't ask you about the FBI. I said the administration. I speak for the FBI. I would like to enter the record an article from today's New York Times titled Trump invokes Kirk's killing and justifiing uh measures to silence opponents. In the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing, President Trump and his allies have laid out a broad plan to target liberal groups, monitor speech, revoke visas, and designate certain groups as domestic terrorists. Ask unanimous consent to insert this into the record. Thank you. Politicizing the murder of Charlie King to go after free speech is not a legacy I believe Charlie King would have wanted. Moving on, I want to address another topic. The FBI has traditionally played a key role in prosecuting public officials for corruption. But I fear that at a time when the president is accepting planes from Qatar for his post-presidential personal use, issuing pardons to major donors, and personally profiting from the office of the presidency, the FBI may be abandoning its commitment to investigating public corruption. Since its creation in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the public integrity section has been one of the crown jewels of the Department of Justice, investigating and prosecuting corruption among the nation's public officials and acting as a key safeguard against politicized prosecutions. This section's work has been supported by an elite squad in the FBI devoted specifically to rooting out corruption. But according to reports, the public integrity section has now been decimated and the FBI's public corruption squad has been dismantled. I would like to submit for the record a New York Times article entitled FBI dismantles elite public corruption squad. I ask unanimous consent. Thank you. These actions are an invitation to corrupt politicians to break the law since they know that the government is asleep at the switch. Last month, Senator Warren and I, along with dozens of other members of Congress, wrote to you and Attorney General Bandi expressing grave concern over your decision to effectively legalize corruption and politicize prosecutions. And he ask unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record. Thank you. I don't have time today to walk through all your questions, all of our questions and concerns, but will you commit to answering this letter in short order so that we can understand what factors led to this decision and how it has impacted the ability to hold corrupt officials accountable?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, director, for being here. I appreciate the the change in uh the FBI and the tone since you've been there. Um we heard the ranking member, however, describe uh the FBI under your leadership as being resorting to political enforcement and you personally as being paranoid. I would just suggest that perhaps that is the projections of the ranking member himself and not you, sir. Um, I want to refer to something that was said yesterday in yesterday's hearing by um, Senator Grassley. Uh, he said, "It's well understood that your predecessor left you an FBI infected with politics. At your nomination hearing, he gave you records uh, uh, made public records about whistleblowers regarding something called Artic Frost." Artic Frost was the FBI case opened and approved by anti-Trump FBI agent Theibo. and Artic Frost became Jack Smith's elector case. The new records show that Artic Frost was much broader than just an electoral matter. In fact, it was expanded to Republican organizations. Some examples of the groups that the Ray FBI sought to place under political investigation included the Republican National Committee, Republican Attorneys General's Association, and Trump political groups. In total, 92 Republican targets, including Republican groups, Republican linked individuals, were placed under the investigative scope of Arctic Frost. On that political list for investigation was one of Charlie Kirk's groups, Turning Point USA. In other words, Artic Frost wasn't just a case to politically investigate Trump. It was the vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors could achieve their partisan ends and improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus. I'd ask that, Mr. Chairman, that that document be administered. Not objection. So, um I I know that this may be under current investigation, but I wish to ask specific questions about this for just a moment. What search tools were used in Arctic Frost to view private communications of targets?

I believe uh the traditional search tools, search warrants, lawful service of process and the and the um tools that the FBI has in our infrastructure systems, cyber security systems, and counter intelligence systems. But generally speaking, if I may, I want to use this to highlight the fact that I'm continuing my promise to work with Congress to produce documents simultaneously and also conduct ongoing investigations. I'm giving you as much as I can and I'll give you more when I can. Thank you. Uh, another question regarding that is, were there any directives from the Biden White House concerning the Arctic Frost investigation? Were there any sorry communicate uh directives or communications from the Biden White House itself uh concerning the Arctic Frost investigation?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Director. So, we'll leave that for a second and let's go over to um, uh, the Charlie Kirk case for just a second. Let's, let's emphasize this. Uh, how many hours did it take from the assassination to the arrest of the assassin, Mr. Director? 33. That seems, uh, pretty swift, and it was because of the, the actual release of videos and photographs that you, you directed to be released, sir. That's correct. And to put it in perspective, the Boston bomber took 5 days, and Luigi Manion took 5 days. Was the platform Discord forthright from the start with law enforcement about the shooter's communications on its platform? Discord, the platform ownership, has been working with our lawful process, and we are obtaining materials from them on a rolling basis. Thank you.

And, um, I want to get back here to, uh, Arctic Frost for just a second. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the, um, unclassified document from the FBI released, uh, to be admitted to the record. Objection. And a document, uh, from the Economic Times also to be admitted to the record. Objection. So, um, I'm going to give you the last 30 seconds. We could go on about the Epstein, Epstein case. I've got a bunch about that, but I'm just going to let you, if you wish to respond to either of the, uh, two vitriolic, um, questioning or statement from the Democrats. The work of the FBI speaks for itself. It's on showcase here today. Anyone that wants to attack the FBI can attack me, but leave our leadership structure alone. When you have 23,000 violent felons arrested, twice as many as this time last year, the work, uh, speaks for itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. Appreciate your good work. Uh, uh, Director Patel, yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Maryland's recognized.

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Director Patel, before you joined the FBI, you railed against it for covering up Jeffrey Epstein's human trafficking ring. Let me refresh your memory with this clip. It 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 pedoist, um, the, the largest scale pedoist in human history? Simple. Because of who's on that list. So, you finished that December 2023 interview with a challenge to the FBI and harsh words for Republicans in Congress for not getting the Epstein files out to the public. You can 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 FBI director each had complete authority to release Epstein's client list. You said Epstein's black book is under the quote, direct control of the director of the FBI. Look at this clip. This is way off the topic, but who has Jeffrey Epstein's black book? Black book. FBI. But who that is? That, that I mean, there's Oh, that's under direct 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 the FBI director. We have released more material than anyone else before. The Biden administration, 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, we're not going after child. Hang on. You said we're not going after child predators. 1,500 child predators arrested this year. 35% increase. 4,700 child victims. 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 have you changed? Everything 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, 7, and 8, and the search warrants from 2006, 7, and 8. That's what we're working with. But wait, 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 release. Which 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? Wait a minute. 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 have direct control over. We have gone to court. You have complete your sentence. Everything you have direct control over, you said have gone to court and everything we have direct control. Complete your sentence. You said everything we release, we're releasing. He'd like to complete his answer. You, you began the sentence. Everything you have direct control over I, and then you stopped 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, I'm perfectly familiar with them. But how did we prosecute, um, Ghislaine 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. Stop that. I'm not blaming anybody other than you. You're not keeping your word. You said that you would release all of the materials on anyone. Released more information on Epstein than I have. Has anyone much more? Comey did 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, that's a tiny fraction of the material we're talking about. It is a tiny fraction. How do you know that? Have you seen everything? It's all misdirected. Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from California is recognized.

Well, thank you, Mr. Director. Just to be clear, how many of the Epstein files were released in the four years of the Biden administration? Zero. And how many have you released? I, I don't have the number, but it's got to be thousands of pages of stuff. I, I was going to ask you, uh, to begin whether Americans are safer today than they were nine months ago, but you cited dramatic increases in criminal arrests since you've taken office, a dramatic decrease in crime that's resulted. Who would have thought that taking criminals off the streets would reduce the crime rate? But, but, uh, somehow we have stumbled upon that, that new truth. But it begs the question, what was the FBI doing during the four years of the Biden administration to, to, to, to see that dramatic an increase in work under, under your tenure? The simple answer is I'm letting good cops be cops. We're working with our state and local law enforcement. We're energizing our partnerships. We're bringing on more task force officers. When you have more cops in the streets, when you're using ground-based intelligence, when you're not weaponizing law enforcement and focusing on DC and focusing on the rest of America, this is what happens. It is not a significant mind shift in terms of how we maneuver the FBI. They've wanted to do this work since they signed up. We're just letting them. And, uh, we, we've seen many prominent Democrats oppose your efforts to restore law and order to the streets of our nation's capital. I mean, all of us here have seen a dramatic change for the better here in Washington, D.C. Why are so many Democrats attacking you for that? Sir, Democrats have been attacking me for a decade, as is the fake news media. They didn't like the fact that I exposed the Russia hoax in the largest weaponization of the FBI, DOJ in U.S. history. We proved it to be true with congressional oversight. I'm wed to that congressional oversight and will continue to do that work. Uh, Christopher Ray repeatedly warned this committee that the Biden open borders policy had produced a significant increase in terrorist threats that he said kept him up at night. Um, the particular concern he said was the 2 million gotaways that entered the country during the Biden administration. That's an average of 41,000 every month. Uh, what are the monthly gotaway numbers today? Sir, I'll have to get back to you on the exact gotaway numbers, but identifying that there are gotaways is step one. Going and manhunting them is step two, and that's what we're committing our resources to. Well, that's, that's, that's my next question is, is what progress has the administration made in apprehending and removing terrorist threats that came in during the Biden years? I think you're talking about, if you're not, let me know, known or suspected terrorists. And we've encountered almost zero at the southern border since the southern border has been sealed. But the problem that we are running into is our northern border. It's largely expansive. The enemy has adapted, and we need more focus on the northern border to stop known or suspected terrorists from coming in from places like China, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan. And what can you tell us about the remaining threat posed by potential terrorist cells here in the United States? That, the, the terrorist threat that is continues to be posed by international terrorists here in the United States is one of my highest priorities. We are working through our intelligence community partners to identify those individuals, and we've taken down numerous individuals in numerous rings across this country to neutralize that terrorist threat, including places like New York City, Los Angeles, and I believe Dallas, Texas, most recently. How extensively did criminal cartels like Sinaloa, Jalisco, New Generation, MS-13, and others infiltrate our country during the Biden administration? By the tens of thousands. Well, and what progress have you been making in combating their presence? I think the DHS is best to speak to that, but I think, uh, I can't remember the numbers of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals they found that came in illegally, and the tens of thousands at associations, the criminal networks have all been deported. And that effort is being opposed every step of the way by Democratic leaders in our cities, some of our states, and right here in Congress. Isn't that true? Well, we're just working where we can in every single city we can, and I welcome the opportunity to partner with Republicans or Democrats on fighting violent crime like we're doing. Mr. Biggs asked about Arctic Frost. What else can you tell us about that and what we need to do to assure that it never happens again? Continue the congressional oversight work that you're doing on Arctic Frost. Let me provide you with more documentation on Arctic Frost and also call in witnesses from the paperwork that we have given you. Uh, you have that right, and the American public deserves to hear what those people have to say. As for my ongoing investigation, there's not much I can say. What, um, role did, uh, the FBI play in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2024 election? Off the top of my memory, sir, um, I believe the FBI was in possession of verified information from that laptop, and it was improperly publicized that they did not have information and masked it as Russian disinformation. We now know that was categorically false. I don't know why the FBI did that, when they did that, but we've released all the materials related to that. Thank you. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York is recognized.

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 name is in the Epstein files and everybody else, um, and all credible information that we are legally 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 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 Ghislaine 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, your. 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. In 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? You're 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 of. 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 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 how. So, I was a fake one, 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 hands down 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 requested and you are not responding to them. Director, yes or no? Is the FBI still spying on parents at school board meetings? Uh, no, sir. Is the FBI still targeting Catholics? No, sir. Is the FBI still spying on President Trump? I don't believe so. Is the FBI still censoring Americans? Uh, no, sir. Is the FBI still targeting Americans for shopping at Cabelas or purchasing Bibles? Nobody is targeted for their faith. Is the FBI still targeting Americans who are pro-life? Nobody is targeting anyone for their beliefs. Is the FBI still cooking the books on crime data? The crime data is real. Is the FBI still purging agents for conservative viewpoints? No one at the FBI has asked their viewpoints on politics. Is the FBI still labeling the Betsy Ross flag, the flag of the American Revolution, a hate symbol? No. Well, maybe that's why you've been able to. What was the number? 23,000 bad guys you've arrested. A huge increase from the same time period in the previous administration. I think you said 1,400 predators, 4,000 children rescued. Those were those effects. 4,700, 35% increase on children rescued. Yeah. And you got the guy that Abby Gate got the Abby. We got the Abby Gate guy. A guy from the fourth district of Ohio who lost his life there serving our country. We appreciate that. Maybe when you're not focused on politics, you can actually do what the FBI is supposed to do. Go get the bad guys. Right. That's what the men and women of the FBI do. Director, did, uh, did John Brennan lie to Congress? Let me, let me, let me just read a couple things actually before you answer that. Two years ago, we had Mr. Brennan in for an interview, and I asked him, "How did you learn about the dossier in December of 2016?" Mr. Brennan replied, "I received a copy of it from the FBI, and the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele Dossier in the intelligence community assessment." That's what John Brennan told the United States Congress 7 weeks ago. The Director of National Intelligence told us this. John Brennan lied and denied using the dossier in the intelligence community assessment because he knew it was discredited. CIA officer told the House Intelligence Committee. Brennan refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier's main flaws, he responded, "Yes, but doesn't it ring true?" John Brennan lied to us. Mr. Chairman, I won't stylize the evidence. Um, what I will say is that the intelligence community assessment, those that created it, and any individual involved with it, is an ongoing investigation. There's a, there's an investigation into what took place in December and January of December 2016, January 2017, when this whole thing started, this grand conspiracy that is being investigated. Is that right? That has been publicly announced by the department. That's been announced by the department. Did Chris Ray hide documents from this committee? You would know better than me, sir. Well, I think you told us like 700 pieces of information you've given this committee since you've been the director relative to just one incident. The Catholic memorandum from the Richmond field office. I can give you the comparison, sir. Yeah. Uh, the Catholic memo, I believe we turned over 750 documents. Uh, in, um, Mr. Ray's tenure, I believe they turned over 19 pages. 19 pages. You give it a 700. Why would Chris Ray hide information from this committee? You want to hazard a guess? I'm sorry. Hazard a guess why he would do that? I don't know, sir. Think maybe it was because they were FBI was spying on a priest trying to get him to break the priest-penitent confidence that exists. You think maybe that was the reason? You'd have to ask him, sir. Yeah, we'd, we'd love to do that. I want to read a few names here. RDK's Tropic Vortex, Riding Hood, Foggy Falls, Echo's Fate, Siren's Lur, Jana Christmas. What are these code names, uh, about? Uh, director, you know, not off the top. Seven. Well, RDK is Tropic. My understanding, these are code names for leak investigations of classified information from the year 2017. Does that ring a bell in terms of leak investigations? Many of those are classified, and many of those are ongoing. Uh, Mr. Chairman. Well, we, we are working with you to produce documents as we close those investigations or as we declassify them. Let me ask you this question because this is something I've, I've, I've wondered about the way the FBI used to work, way this whole thing kind of, so many of these things unfolded. Seems to me you had all these people in government leaking information that then gets reported in the press. There's a story written about it, and then that article is then used to further the investigation and move, move forward with what they want to do. Was, did that, did that take place back in '16 and '17? That's the exact scenario that took place in the FISA application, um, for, uh, Carter Page and the rest of the Trump campaign. And that is frightening because that's what the CIA is supposed to do in foreign countries. It's not supposed to happen to Americans, but it did, didn't it, director? Yes. And not just any Americans. It happened with the president of the United States. Is that accurate? Yes, sir. Yeah. And you were the key guy in helping expose that. And I, I, you, I think our country will be forever grateful for what you did to, to let the country know that was going on involving Americans, which is not supposed to happen. And not just again, any American, but the president of the United States. Chair, uh, Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from California.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm concerned by reports that FBI agents have been diverted from their important work on crime and anti-terrorism to work on matters that are not critical to our safety. I'd like to play the video. The whole video. Jeffrey Epstein's Blackbook. Blackbook. FBI. But who that is? That, that I mean, there's Well, that's under direct control of the director of the FBI. But the black book is not just sitting. I mean, that's that's Hoover power times 10. And, and to me, that's a thing I think President Trump should run on on day one. Roll out the black book. In contrast to that attitude of let it all out, we're, um, getting reports of, uh, actions that run contrary, uh, to getting everything out, and that also involve diversions of FBI resources. For example, an FBI whistleblower reported that you were pressured by the Attorney General to place 1,000 personnel on 24-hour shifts to mine roughly a 100,000 Epstein-related records to redact President Trump's name from the files. Bloomberg, uh, reported this, that you directed FBI special agents from the New York and Washington field offices to join the bureau's foyer employees, uh, in Winchester, uh, and another building a few miles away, and that while reviewing the Epstein files, FBI personnel identified numerous references to Trump in the documents, and people familiar with the matter said that Trump's name, along with other high-profile individuals, was blacked out. Now, the New York Times reports, and this is a quote, "Justice Department officials diverted hundreds of FBI employees and federal prosecutors from their regular duties to go through the documents at least four times, including once to flag any references to Mr. Trump and other prominent figures. Details of the review were based on accounts by three former FBI and Justice Department officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of retaliation," and further that the FBI finished, uh, after they finished its review of the files and materials was sent to a team of Justice Department lawyers who double-checked the FBI's redactions and quote, "were instructed to flag any mentions of Mr. Trump and other, uh, celebrities." Now, I have three questions for you, uh, Mr. Patel, about this. Uh, first, how many times did President Trump's name appear in the Epstein files? Was it more than a hundred? More than a thousand? Um, were the agents who were pulled from their duties to redact the president's name from the Epstein files working on criminal cases, or national security cases, or child sex trafficking cases? And are the number of agents that have been, uh, reported diverted for these purposes? Is that accurate? No. No. What? You asked if it was accurate. I said it wasn't. So, you're saying that none of this happened. That. No, I'm saying it was inaccurate. Okay. How many times did President Trump's name appear, uh, in the Epstein files? More than a hundred? More than a thousand? No. And what we've been able to release is what we've been legally able to release. And that has. No, that's not the question I asked you. How many times did the president's name appear? I don't know. It's your testimony. You do not know that answer. The number of times. No. Um, could you tell us how many agents were diverted for this task and what they were working on? Well, when you say diverted, you make it seem as if agents were pulled off what they do all the time. Agents at the FBI masterfully do double duty and triple duty. And because of the public's interest in this case, we flex resources to make sure that we could answer the public's signal demand. So, do you want us to look through the material and provide it to you, or you do not want us to do that? So, it's your testimony that no one was diverted from a criminal matter, that this was a high priority to go through these, uh, this material to look for Mr. Trump's name. Is that your testimony? That's the highest priority for the FBI. What's one of the most impressive things about the FBI leadership and the careers that are in place is that they make the decisions on who to send where on priorities and make sure the mission needs are not hurt. And that's what happened here. Uh, it's shocking to me that the FBI would think that erasing Mr. Trump's name from the Epstein files is a high priority when we have crime, we have national security threats, we have, uh, terrorism threats, we have murders such as that that occurred unfortunately with Mr. Kirk. It's shocking to hear that that's your highest priority. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I. That's literally not what I said. Gentle yields back. Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

Uh, director, is President Trump implicated in any wrongdoing related to Jeffrey Epstein? Based on the entirety of the evidence that we have, absolutely not. The president is not implicated. Correct. Thank you. Um, I want to talk a little bit about China's malign influence here in America. And, uh, you know, we've seen spy balloons traverse the United States. We've seen police stations in communities around America. And, uh, sitting in the chair you're in, just two years ago, there was a sheriff from Cochise County, Arizona, Mark Dan, that was here, uh, who said that the, uh, the exponential increase in the amount of fentanyl that is coming into America is directly related to the open borders policies of the previous administration. Do you agree with Sheriff Danl's characterization? Uh, in large part, yes. So, um, since you've been director, has there been a reduction with, I mean, we've talked about how, uh, the border is largely secure now, right? The southern border. Yes, sir. The southern border is largely secure. Has there been a concomitant reduction, or a reduction in the amount of fentanyl that is coming into America? There has been a massive reduction to the tune of we've seized more than 25% year-to-date this year than the prior year. And that's enough fentanyl to kill 120 million Americans. Does China play a role in this fentanyl that's coming to America? Um, as I stated in my opening, sir, what they do and the companies in China, mainland China do is produce the precursors and the cutting agents that they send ship overseas through various countries into the Mexican drug cartels who produce it. So they basically are the cooks in terms of the ingredients. Tell us what is the FBI doing to stop China from delivering death to America? So for the first time in a decade, I actually reached out to my counterpart at the Ministry of Public Security. No one at the FBI had done so. To engage Ministry of Security, where is that? In, in mainland China. In mainland China, thank you. To engage in a conversation to say, "Hey, can we have a certain number of these precursor chemicals listed in China so that they become illegal and illegal to trade?" We've also working with our counterparts in places like India and Guatemala because the transshipment routes of the precursors, the Mexican drug cartels have gotten creative and instead of coming directly to America are going into these countries, and we've had massive success in India and Guatemala and in those governments, great partnerships in shutting down the ability to ship the precursors into those countries which are ultimately destined to America. So those people that are working with security agencies, uh, have been, uh, working with you. Is that accurate? Yes, sir. So, I want to turn to a couple cases that are at the University of Michigan, uh, where Chinese nationals on behalf of the Chinese government, um, smuggled in illicit biological materials, um, stuff that can harm our agricultural industry. What actions are you taking, um, as we see repeated stories of Chinese nationals doing this across in the United States? So just that, sir, um, in the, this calendar year alone, as I was mentioning, our counterintelligence operations and cases brought against the Chinese are up by, I think something like 40%. And specifically, the cases in Michigan show two threat streams, not just against our agricultural industry, which is a threat to national security, but they were also bringing in, um, chemical agents and mushrooms. I'm not the exact expert to that would have ultimately hurt our population. We arrested and charged all of those individuals, and we were aggressively going after them in every single state because they weren't doing it in Michigan alone. Should un you research universities across the United States be doing a thorough job of vetting Chinese nationals that are coming to their universities? They should. Uh, turning to spying in America, you know, we heard the stories about Diane Fein, Senator Diane Feinstein's, um, driver who was a Chinese spy. We're familiar with Linda's son who worked in Governor Hokll's office, Christine Fang in California. Um, are you, uh, what are you doing to find these people who are Chinese spies that are trying to burrow themselves into the politics of America because we know it's happening, right? Yes, it is. And what our counterintelligence, um, unit is doing is aggressively seeking the intelligence into where these individuals are working. Then we are utilizing our operational authorities to go in and investigate them either through our human source networks and collecting information through lawful process, online search warrants, and data so that we can bring proper arrest charges and publicize to the world what they're doing here. And just because we've caught a few doesn't mean we've caught everybody. We've got a lot more to go. I get one more quick question in. Uh, the FBI harass arrested a judge in Wisconsin, Hannah Dugan, for interfering with a federal law enforcement operation. Um, could you tell us a little bit about that? And is a judge above the law here in the United States of America? Well, no one is, and that case is ongoing, but as you stated, in these allegations that there was an interference in a federal lawfully executed federal law enforcement priority that was interfered with. I yield back. Mr. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Patel, I believe you had primary importance and and starting Operation Viper in Memphis. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And Operation Viper brought in the FBI, the DEA, the ATF to help Memphis police in in policing the city. That'll be phase two, sir. Phase one was, um, FBI and local law enforcement in Memphis for the last few months. Okay. Uh, you, you did a good job and, and police director and the mayor have told me that that was been helpful. Uh, the FBI working with the police, and the FBI are trained in law enforcement. They know Miranda rights. They know how to do policing, and they do a good job working with the police. Uh, do you think that the National Guard is necessary to do the work that the FBI is doing now? Thank you. I, I do think it's necessary to finish it. What we've done is 500 arrests in Memphis and 110 federal indictments. But what we need to do is, we've only secured a piece of where the criminal conduct is occurring in Memphis, and we can't work inside, uh, perimeters that are not established and safe, and we don't have the manpower to give us the space to fully go into the areas where the criminal activity remains. Well, are you suggesting that the National Guard is going to go into the more crime heavily crime areas? They're going to establish, like they did in Washington D.C., perimeters where local law enforcement and the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals can go into. Um, we can't be going into all these areas knowing that they're extremely volatile and jeopardizing the safety of our agents. Did the National Guard do anything in, in Washington to, to help the FBI stay safe from these dangerous elements? They established perimeters. Established perimeter. The criminals knew about it, so they, it was a visible force, sir. So, they kind of saw it. Well, what you did, I commend you for what you did, and I think the FBI coming in. We have a crime problem in Memphis. The FBI has helped. DEA will help, and the, uh, ATF will help. I don't think the National Guard is going to help. And what I've seen, they're not trained in. They're not trained in law enforcement, are they? No, sir. And, and so that could be a problem. U Who will direct the National Guard in Memphis? Will it be, uh, will they have control over your agents? No, sir. They won't. Who will, who will have control over your agency? You, well, the SACE and then ultimately the chain of command up to Washington D.C. will control the FBI, but there's a task force that was put together that is going to be led by an interagency, the heads of U.S. Marshals, DEA, and FBI will be working together with DHS, uh, collectively on this. Have you visited Memphis before? Yes, sir, I have. So you know how good a city it is. I love Memphis. A lot of us do. And Memphis is a great city, great history. Civil rights museum might say something about slavery, but that's that was the history needs to be taught. Blues, Elvis, Beale Street, Beale Street, right? Barbecue, and people should come. It's not a troubled city. We've got some crime, but it's not a troubled city. We're not troubled, and we, uh, love our city, and we hope that the National Guard doesn't come in and, and cause people to have questions about Memphis because it's the city they should visit. Uh, let me ask you this about, you said that the homicide rates are coming down to an all-time low. Uh, in modern recorded U.S. history, yes. When does modern recorded history start? I think the FBI, and I'll get back to you on this, um, has stats on that going back about 30 years, sir. Okay. I was thinking back to Ozzie and Harriet, and I didn't think you could beat Ozzie and Harriet's time. Um, secondly, you, you mentioned the E. Jean Carroll case. Did any of the women that were victims, and they came up here and had a press conference and all, did any of them contact your office and ask to give information? To my knowledge, no, sir. If they did, let me ask you first. Is there a statute of limitations on sex crimes like that, with sex with a minor, rape? The DOJ is the expert, but I do not believe there's a statute on that limitations on that. So, there's not a statute of limitation. Should you not be interviewing those people who know who raped them and the names and the places and give you that information? That seems like that's a treasure trove of information, and it's a serious, serious, serious number of crimes. Sir, I couldn't agree with you more. We've been very public about asking individuals to come forward with new information, and we would run out every single lead on that. Well, I'm sure the women will come forward, especially today, to assure that they will get an opportunity because that seems like something we ought to do. Uh, the, uh, you, Mr. Driscoll, what was his reputation? I can't comment on Mr. Driscoll's matter. It's an ongoing litigation. Yeah, but his reputation, you can tell us about. I can tell you I can't tell you about his reputation. His work, um, has been laid out in that lawsuit. How many of the FBI agents who worked on nine, the nine January 6th case have been fired? I don't have that number, sir. Do you have a ballpark figure? No, but I can tell you that individuals based on case assignments in the FBI that I have led have not been terminated for case assignments. Thank you, sir. Come back to Memphis and you work with Kevin Kane and our, and our tourism bureau. Great. Thank you. And thank you for your work in Memphis. Gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous 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 a Wall Street Journal article 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. May it, 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's recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one UC request. This is Judge Engelmir's decision from August in U.S. 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 non-prosecution 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 FD-302 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 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, um, indictment. So, 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, two different United States attorneys' offices from three separate administrations who investigated those same materials in lifetime. The 302 documents in the FBI's possession. They reviewed all that. Yes, sir. And, and so have you reviewed those 302 documents where the victims named 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, 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 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 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, 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 interagency, 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, I have a unanimous gentleman yield back. Unanimous consent request from the gentleman from New York. I ask unanimous consent to introduce an unsigned memorandum from July 7th, 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, Mr. uh chairman, I have a unanimous unanimous consent request. Uh, it's a article entitled DOJ deletes study showing domestic terrorists are most often right-wing.

Without objection. Thank you. Gentleman from the Georgia is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Director Patel, thank you for being here today. I want to um first uh talk about the um significant role that the FB FBI plays in uh combating the national security threats posed by our nation's greatest threat uh our nation's greatest security threat uh China and the Chinese Communist Party. Um, it's a fact that um, China is America's most significant national security threat. Isn't that correct?

I would say so, sir.

And you would agree with me that China wants to uh dominate the United States of America?

I think that's largely their plan.

And it want they want to dominate the world both militarily and economically. Isn't that correct?

I think so.

And sir, uh, you've been FBI director for the last, uh, what, eight months?

Seven months.

Yes. Seven months. And, um, and during that time, have you held any stock in any companies founded in China?

I don't believe so.

Well, you do own stock in a company known as Elite Depot, don't you?

Which one?

Sorry. Elite Depot. You own stock.

I think that's I I'll have to get back to you. I think it's a law firm and it's a company out of Singapore.

Okay. Well, no. The company out of Singapore which is owned by Elite Depot is the Shaheen company which was founded in China. Correct.

That company operates out of Taiwan. They changed their headquarters from uh China back in 2022 to Singapore uh for tax purposes, but it's owned by a Chinese billionaire. I think his name is Charlie Zeus.

And um and you own stock in the company that owns Shien, which I disclosed during my confirmation process.

Yes, you certainly did.

And um now do you still hold that stock in that Chinese company?

Pursuant to the um the Department of Justice who reviewed my material that was submitted during my confirmation process. Um I was able to hold certain stocks and they made the decision.

You still hold the stocks that you have? You still you still hold on to these uh Chinese stocks? These stocks in this Chinese company?

I disagree that it's a Chinese company, but I was in the DOJ when you're appointed makes a call on what you can and can't possess.

Now, let me ask you this. Chinese companies steal trademarks. They produce counterfeit products and sell them over the internet on platforms such as Shien. Uh they steal intellectual property. They steal data from uh American companies. And to me, it seems inconsistent with your role as FBI director that you would own stock in a company that is based in a country that is the nation's premier national security threat. It's like you are putting your own financial security over the security of the nation.

I disagree with that characterization.

Well, I think the American people look at it like it's a classic situation of the fox guarding the hen house. If the FBI is charged with investigating uh espionage, economic espionage uh by companies uh controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and you are the director of the FBI, you've got a conflict of interest.

Sir, I would just show if there's any intimate in intimation that I

Why are you holding on to this stock? It wasn't a decision made and it's and it's valued at up to $5 million as of when you last reported, correct?

$5 million in stock. The I don't follow it. The department I don't follow it, but you're still making money off of it.

I don't have any money off of anything.

What I have done Trump's trade policies directly impact the value of that Chinese stock. Won't you agree with that?

Which trade policy? I'm not a trade expert.

Okay. All right. But I want to tell you this crazy on me today. Let me ask you this question. Why are you hiding pedophiles? Why are you shielding pedophiles? Why are you protecting pedophiles?

That is maybe the most offensive thing you could say to me given the numbers.

Well, you have not released the numbers files of pedophiles. Were aware of the client list that was published in the 18,000.

I'm the gentleman has expired.

Um, the gentleman yield back.

Can you answer the question?

Of course. The gentleman can answer the question. Since I took over the FBI, there has been a 33% increase.

Sir, all of that started under Christopher.

Your time is done.

No, it didn't. The witness gets to answer the question and then we'll go to our next BI director, sir. And you're coming in here trying to take credit for something that a previous director instituted and largely brought to conclusion.

I take clear that the the director offensive has numbers so much better than the previous director. It's you want to answer the question.

I take no credit. The men and women of the FBI have seen a 33% increase in the number of counter intelligence arrests out of the PR.

So all of a sudden when you coming in 7 months ago gentleman is tired and on the pedophile accusation go for that we have arrested 1500 trial child predators in the last 7 months under investigations initiated by the prior director the director's good work and we really appreciate that the time of the gentleman has expired. We now go to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the chairman. I thank the FBI director for coming before the committee. I assume the FBI director, Mr. Patel, I believe uh you probably agree with me that there is a significant organized effort uh on the left uh side of the political spectrum to advance criminal organizations being able to put more criminals out on the streets that what we've seen we've seen this in in daily action. Are you familiar with the report that came out this last Monday from the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund?

I I'm I'm not familiar with that. Sorry.

So this report came out this past Monday and it said that significant amount of the money flowing out of George Soros and other leftist organizations and funders has been funding DAs and prosecutors and quote many of these DAs have never managed an office, prosecuted a criminal case, developed organizational policies in dozens of America's largest cities and counties. This report finds these progressive district attorneys have outsourced core parts of the American criminal justice system to activists and political donors taking direction and advice on everything from staffing decisions and communication strategy organizations. It's a complex web of donors going in through these organizations to radical put radical DAs and prosecutors out there putting criminals on the streets. Does the FBI director agree that this exists and is a problem?

I will accept the factual representation and if that exists, it is a problem.

the organizations such as Tides, the Fair and Just Prosecution, Briner Center for Justice, Partnership for Safety and Justice, the Vera Institute of Justice, the amount of dollars flowing from George Soros through and to these organizations and to the various prosecutors that have resulted in increased crime on our streets, including the brutal murder of the Ukrainian refugee in Charlotte. I bring that up because that is one component of the the problem. In addition, we have an organized effort targeting our border, the NOS's, the nonprofits in the deep pockets, the United Nations, charitable organizations, and a long list of over 250 organizations that the Center for Immigration Studies put out that lays out a complex web of organizations that were moving people into our country knowing that they're dangerous, knowing that they're criminal, associated with taxpayer dollars flowing through the United Nations and donor dollars flowing through organizations including ostensibly religious ones putting these dangerous individuals on the street that resulted in fental in our communities that resulted in the death of Jocelyn Nungare of hundreds thousands even as the director testified 100 thousand people dying from these narcotics every year all of this in an organized effort a complete um effort by the radical left to use taxpayer dollars and these dollars to put people on our streets In addition, the extent to which we've seen now with the Southern Poverty Law Center and their hate map targeting, for example, the Family Research Council where we had a shooting right here in DC over a decade ago, putting Charlie Kirk, putting a target on TPUSA, Antifa, other radical organizations that are very specifically organized and targeting conservatives and ordinary American Americans. How about the organized effort to infiltrate our schools and advance a transgender agenda and advance a radical agenda? Perhaps one that we will see exposed further in the individual that actually shot Charlie Kirk. So here's my question. Will you as the director and are you as the director pursuing all legal channels to follow the truth wherever it may lead on this organized effort? one and two, do you agree that Congress should take all action necessary to expose this web of dollars that are flowing to undermine our way of life? I got another minute in my time, then I'd like to hear from you on this topic broadly.

Uh, I'll keep it short. U, investigatively speaking, we are doing the following. We are following the money. We are following the money in every organization and every person that is violating the federal code. And it doesn't matter what your background or ideology is. We are following the money. We are using legal process to following that money. Issuing subpoenas to follow that money. Using grand juries to follow that money. And when we have results to recommend for prosecution to the Department of Justice, we will do that. And we will continue to publicize documents through Congress. Yes. When we make these findings, Mr. Chairman, I'd like unanimous consent to insert the record outsourcing justice by the law enforcement legal defense fund that I alluded to before. I would ask unanimous consent to add a 2024 list provided by the center for immigration studies on these United Nations and other affiliated groups that are responsible over 250 of them for moving individuals into our country and a coordinated effort. Um, I would like a unanimous consent to insert a letter that I sent that currently has 33 members of the United States House of Representatives have signed on it calling for a special select committee to pursue the organized effort from the radical left to target our way of life and undermine our security by putting criminals on the street and having our borders being wide open and putting us in danger. Um, and uh, with that I would yield back.

Without objection, gentleman yields back the Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of unanimous gentle request. Uh, one is uh a uh letter from to Senator Tom Cotton uh dated last year urging the US to quote ensure that data from US companies is not harvested by the Chinese Communist Party through the purchase of Shien software and technology.

Objection.

And uh also a uh a um statement by uh Marco Rubio, then Senator Marco Rubio, which warned our UA our UK allies about quote Shien's deep ties to the People's Republic of China.

Without objection.

Also, uh a um crime is a uh the record crime is down in 2025. Trump doesn't deserve credit, which demonstrates that the crime rates have been decreasing since 2023, which was published by the Vera Institute. Also a um uni unanimous consent request uh to uh enter into the record a NPR report uh from July of 17 July of 2024 GOP vows to make America safe again statistics contradict their growing crime claims.

Without objection.

Also, a report uh out of the American Presidency Project dated January 17, 2025, record low crime during the Biden Harris administration.

Without objection.

Also, Joe Biden is correct that violent crime is near a 50-year low, which was a uh Politifact publication of May 2024. And last but not least, a uh FBI releases 2024 reported crimes in the nation statistics. These are FBI statistics published uh on August 5th, 2025, which details decreases in murder, rape, aggregated assault, and robbery in 2024.

Without objection, gentlemen, gentleman from KY's recognized for unanimous consent.

So without objection. Thank you.

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California. Director, the first time you saw Donald Trump's name was in the Epstein files. Did you close the files or keep reading?

I have reviewed not the entirety of the files.

So I have You haven't reviewed all of the Epstein files?

Personally, no.

You're the director of the FBI. This is the largest sex trafficking case the FBI has ever been a part of. Buck stops at the top and your testimony today is you have not reviewed all the files.

What I've been doing is busy providing the safest country this country has seen in modern US history in historic speed because the men and women of the FBI are given the resources to reduce the homicide rates to reduce the drug trafficking rate to reduce the amount of children that are being trafficked and the number of it sounds like those children being traffic.

I appreciate the director reviewing the files. You said you don't know the number of times Trump's name appears in the files, so it could at least be a thousand times. Is that right?

The number is a total misleading factor. We have not released anyone's name. We have not released anyone's name in the files that has not been credible.

Director, could at least release every piece of legally permissible information. You can characterize the numbers however you want it. You're claiming my time, director. It sounds like if you don't know the number, it could at least be a thousand times, which reminds me, it's not. Is it at least 500 times?

No.

Is it at least 100 times?

No.

Then what's the number?

I don't know the number, but it's not that.

Do you think it might be your job to know the number?

My job is to provide for the safety and security of this country. My job is not to engage in political innuendo so you can go out to the sticks and get your 22nd hit in your fundraising article.

Keep going. Reclaiming your time because the people of California are being underserved by your representation. President is not implicated. Why not release everything that involves

I have never spoken to President Trump about the Epstein files.

Did you ever tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?

The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.

Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? And we have released where President Trump is. It's a simple question. Did you tell the attorney general that the president'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 this country and the number of pedophiles that are legally harbored in your sanctuary cities in California?

I'll work with you on that. Work with us on that. Belongs to gentleman from California. Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?

The question has been asked and answered.

You've not answered it and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt. Director, did Donald Trump ever say to you just find and release the entire truth? Don't worry if I'm in it.

The instructions from the administration were to release all credible information and we have done that.

Did Donald Trump ever provide information about Jeffrey Epstein as an informant?

Donald Trump has not been and I can only speak for the FBI an informant of the FBI.

So, director, you've played this cute shell game where you say you can't release everything because the court has said that it legally is not allowed to be released, but the court calls Judge Richard Burman said that when you went to the court, quote, "Information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales pales in comparison to Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice." So, let's move on. Director, you wrote a book called Government Gangsters. You identified 20 individuals in that book. You put me on that list, at the top of the list. Thank you. My children find it flattering. 20 of those individuals have been investigated or have had adverse actions. Director, considering that you have identified these people as quote government gangsters, will you recuse yourself from making any investigation decisions about these individuals?

Anyone that has been terminated at the FBI has been done so failed to meet them muster their constitutional obligations work on the audiovisisual capabilities. I'm going to borrow your terminology and call on your entire career in Congress. been a disgrace to the American people. You can reclaim your time all you want.

Mr. Chairman, you're going to allow a witness to speak this way. Mr. Chairman, would you accuse yourself?

The gentleman has no time.

Mr. Chairman, would you admonish the witness not to insult members?

Gentleman has no time.

Mr. Chairman, committee will remember. Quick point of order. Um, could the gentleman be extended an additional 20 seconds to complete his thoughts since the witness decided to interrupt him? And the witness will be able to respond if he wants. We'll make sure he has time to do that. My question is, will you, director, recuse yourself, yes or no, from investigating or making decisions about the 60 individuals, including myself, that you identified as government gangsters? Yes or no?

Time of the gentleman has expired. The witness may respond if he would like. And the answer was no, as I heard. Correct.

Okay. The gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes.

Is that kind of I'll let the public reports reflect themselves. I don't have the exact timeline.

Okay. So, we don't have any idea kind of his prep or how he set up or how he utilized that time when he first showed up on campus.

I I think for members of Congress, especially after Butler and Pennsylvania, it it's just unimaginable that there could be some type of security breakdown prior to an event of that size where somebody could access a rooftop.

Um, so not commenting on the case, but having gone to the crime scene and walked the steps that we believe were taken, the roof was actually readily accessible through an exterior stairwell, so anyone could have gotten on it.

Okay. Okay. Um, the suspect flees on foot to kind of this wooded area where he drops the rifle, wraps it in a towel, and then proceeds to his staged vehicle and basically drives home. So, do do we have any idea what the towel was about? Was it used later to identify a place where the firearm was left or

Well, we sorry. Uh, what we can tell you is the towel, there was a screwdriver found on the rooftop which DNA was collected off of and the towel was found wrapped around the firearm in question in a wooded area next to the campus. All have been processed for DNA. And then according to the suspect's roommate, there were allegedly messages on instant messaging platforms, specifically Discord, suggesting the towel may have been used to identify that weapons location.

So, the public reports have suggested that the shooter acted alone. Do we still believe that that's true? Do we have any idea as to whether or not those Discord messages led us to believe that the shooter may have had help in any way or assistance?

I can only speak to the FBI's investigation and our investigation is ongoing and we are interviewing any of those individuals involved in that chat and other individuals in the area.

Very good. And if so, my suggestion, if there are accomplices, I'm sure this is something that the FBI is going to continue to investigate fully and thoroughly into the future.

Yes, sir.

The reason I asked that is because I don't know that that was necessarily the case uh with Butler, Pennsylvania. So, thank you so much for your persistence kind of in this matter. There's still a lot of uh public questions that need to be asked. Uh let me shift uh to another topic very quickly. On July 31st, 2025, the DOJ and the CIA declassified the annex to special counsel John Durham's 2023 report on Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Um the 29page Durham annex contains previously classified information about among other things the investigative referral of the Clinton campaign plan. Uh, why would somebody place documents in a burn bag related to this case?

That case is very much ongoing, so I can't comment on the stylization of the evidence we're collecting.

Can you comment at all on the Durham annex as I described it?

The Durham annex, which has been publicly released thanks to the FBI's commitment to transparency, is one of the documents that's being utilized. And in general terms speaking for burn bag, sir, a burn bag is what you use to put classified documents into generally because that is literally how you destroy them.

So it it appears that efforts were made by the Clinton campaign to reach out to the FBI agents or the Clinton sympathizers in the intelligence community in order to lead more credibility to the Clinton campaign plan. Do you think that's an accurate characterization?

Again, I'm not going to characterize that material because it's part of an ongoing investigation.

Thanks for being here today. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. 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. 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 lude photographs of girls was discovered in safe inside financier 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 each 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 stain on the front of his pants and the girls are kind of kind of pointing at it sort of bent over laughing.

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 raise a great point. I haven't personally asked to talk to Michael.

FBI asked, but 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 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 Epste 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 Epste 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 Pam Body 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 Epstein's client list?

The index has been released and the index will speak for itself.

So, I'm just going to say America's a huge red flag. The FBI director could not answer whether Donald Trump was on EP.

Gentleman's time is expired. now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

Sorry. Were the findings were these findings that were given to us escalated within the bureau's chain of command? And if so, what level did you receive this information?

That that entire matter is currently under investigation by the people at the FBI that handle leaks of classified information.

All right. It's good to know that there is an ongoing investigation. Um, can you tell me whether these leaks uh to the media compromised any ongoing FBI investigations during the Trump Russia probe?

I can tell you generally speaking, the leaks of classified information were detrimental to any work the FBI is doing.

In reference to Director Comey, um I'm very limited in what I can say because of what the current status of those matters are with the FBI and the Department of Justice. When I am able to make those public, I will.

Can you tell me if there's an ongoing investigation there?

Because we know that the documents that we received last month revealed that former Director Comey used Columbia University law professor as a conduit to leak stories to the media that contained classified information. Let me move on to the way that uh the FISA process was weaponized by past directors. U prior to your confirmation, you raised concerns about government misuse of FISA, including section 702, stating that FISA was in need of major major reform. Specifically, you highlighted that u the Fisk report that the FBI had conducted 278,000 improper searches of the FISA database. Do you remain concerned about governmental abuse of FISA in section 702?

I'm always concerned, but what we've done since I became FBI director is implement new um audit systems. We are nearing a 100% review of the 702 query system that you are specifically referring to. And we've also eliminated anyone that has ever touched that database that has in any way made a mistake uh whether intentional or not. And we have also um identified a system in which those going forward who misuse the 702 system, they don't get two strikes, they get one and you're done.

Okay. I'm glad you mentioned you're continuing to audit because as you know in May the New York Times reported you closed the FBI's office of internal auditing. Uh can you explain why you decided to close this office?

Yeah, because under the new restructuring of the FBI to save resources, there were two different places doing the exact same thing. We have a specific division dedicated to audits. I didn't need another audit system doing the audits again. And so we folded some of those folks with their expertise into our specific division and then took the rest of those folks and are moving them out across the country.

Under previous FBI leadership, uh FBI agents were found to have lied to the FISK. There have been hundreds of thousands of violations of the querying standards in light of past violations. What action is the FBI taking to ensure that similar abuses do not occur in the future?

Uh exactly what I've outlined. You cannot have access to the 702 query system if you improperly query that system at all at any time in your career.

I don't believe so, but I'll get back to you.

Thank you. That'd be important. I appreciate that. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentlemanly from Washington's recognized.

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. Massiey'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. 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 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 talk about coverups I will take 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 and I'm going to take another you accuse the witness of something he's allowed to respond that's how it works he didn't even excuse me you have always been fair but this is not fair and you will get this is my time and he said the witnesses were not seconds of time I'm going to get an additional minute of time because that's you won't 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 departments had. And they determined, not me, they determined that that information was not credible.

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 an 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. These women, are these women credible? It's a yes or no answer.

I have answered the question and keep 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?

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 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 meet with the women who were sexually and raped and groomed to the gentle lady from Washington years old. Are you going to cover up? Are you going to continue? I'm going to recognize the gentleman from Jersey for powerful men including those that might be on this committee. I can yell too, Mr. Chairman, but I don't want to yell. 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, 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 Biden 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. 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. 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 Epste are in Trump's cabinet." Without objection, chair now recognize the gentle from Pennsylvania.

Get Our Mobile App

US News LIVE | Kash Patel SACKED? 'RESIGN NOW' Storm Hits FBI Chief Over Epstein Videos | Trump

Transcription