Massie Names 20 Epstein Clients — 67 Seconds Later, Patel’s ‘No Names’ LIE Destroyed Career

On September 17th, 2025, the air in the Rayburn House Office Building was thick with anticipation as the House Judiciary Committee convened for an oversight hearing that would change the trajectory of federal law enforcement.

What began as a standard bureaucratic defense of the FBI turned into a historic confrontation. In a mere 67 seconds, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) dismantled years of institutional obfuscation by revealing that the FBI possessed documents—FD-302 victim interview summaries—naming at least 20 prominent men who allegedly received trafficked girls from Jeffrey Epstein.

The Foundation of a Coverup

Thomas Massie, an MIT-educated engineer known for his clinical approach to evidence, approached the microphone carrying four manila folders. Before addressing FBI Director Kash Patel, Massie entered into the record documents highlighting Epstein’s deep ties to intelligence agencies.

“I have four documents for the record,” Massie began. “This quotes Alexander Acosta, the former US attorney who gave Epstein that sweetheart deal, saying: ‘I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone.’”

Massie’s opening salvo established a grim reality: the Epstein case wasn’t just about a lone predator; it was a protected operation. He cited Epstein’s private calendar, which detailed dozens of meetings with CIA chiefs and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, reinforcing the idea that the “client list” was shielded by the highest levels of government.

The Interrogation: 67 Seconds of Truth

The hearing reached a fever pitch when Massie confronted Patel over his testimony from the previous day. Just 24 hours earlier, Patel had told the Senate there was “no credible information” that Epstein trafficked victims to other men.

Massie: “Director Patel, yesterday Senator Kennedy asked you who did Epstein traffic these women to? Your reply was there is no credible information that he trafficked.”

Patel: “Congressman, what I said was that according to case files constrained by limited search warrants from 2006 to 2007…”

Massie immediately cut him off, noting that those constraints applied only to Florida, not the Southern District of New York (SDNY), which produced the 2019 indictment and thousands of FD-302 documents. Then, Massie delivered the list the public had been waiting years to hear.

“According to victims who cooperated with the FBI, these documents in your possession detail at least 20 men,” Massie stated. He then categorized the suspects:

Jess Staley, former Barclays CEO.
A royal prince.
A Hollywood producer worth hundreds of millions.
A music industry figure.
An Italian car company owner.
A rockstar and a magician.
Six billionaires, including one from Canada.

The Fatal Admission

At exactly 10:48 a.m., 67 seconds after he began, Massie asked the question that would end Patel’s career as Director.

Massie: “Director Patel, have you personally reviewed those FD-302 documents where victims named the people who victimized them?”

The silence in the room was deafening. Patel had two choices: admit he lied to the Senate when he said no names existed, or admit he hadn’t bothered to read the victim testimonies in his own database.

“I personally have not reviewed all of them,” Patel admitted quietly.

The admission was a physical blow to the administration’s credibility. Massie pounced: “How can you sit here in front of the Senate and say there are no names when you haven’t even reviewed the documents that contain the names?”

The Aftermath: Whistleblowers and Public Outrage

The fallout was instantaneous. Within minutes, “#20Names” trended worldwide. The spectacle of an FBI Director admitting he ignored victim testimonies while meeting with social media influencers at the White House—a point Massie also pressed him on—created a bipartisan wave of condemnation.

By October 2025, the pressure from Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna forced the “Epstein Files Transparency Act” through Congress. The legislation, signed in November, compelled the Department of Justice to begin releasing the documents Patel had claimed contained nothing of value.

Thomas Massie’s 67-second interrogation stands as a masterclass in oversight. It proved that in an age of partisan theater, documentary evidence and the courage to ask a simple, devastating question remain the most potent tools for holding power to account.