RASKIN DESTROYS KASH PATEL: Epstein Cover-Up EXPOSED on Live TV

🎭 The Hypocrisy of Power: Kosh Patel’s Sudden Loss of Appetite for Epstein Transparency

The recent congressional hearing was not a sober exchange of facts; it was a devastating portrait of political hypocrisy and the deep, institutional aversion to transparency when the stakes become personal. Congressman Jamie Raskin delivered a masterclass in holding an official accountable, not with new evidence, but with the official’s own, damning words. The subject was FBI Director Kosh Patel, and the topic was the still-hidden details of the Jeffrey Epstein human trafficking ring.

Raskin exposed a breathtaking shift in Patel’s position: the former fierce critic of the FBI, who once thundered about the agency protecting “the world’s foremost predator,” now sits as its director, adopting the very posture of opacity he once condemned.

The Pre-Appointment Zealot vs. The Current Official

Raskin began by refreshing Patel’s memory with clips from his December 2023 interviews—a time when Patel was unconstrained by institutional loyalty.

In those clips, Patel was unequivocal: the FBI was “protecting the greatest pedo[phile], the largest scale pedo[phile] in human history” simply “because of who’s on that list.” He challenged Republicans in Congress to “put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are,” asserting that the Epstein black book was under the “direct control of the director of the FBI.”

Patel’s pre-appointment position was a demand for absolute, immediate transparency. He placed the blame squarely on the director and the president, claiming they had “complete authority” to release the client list.

However, after being sworn in as FBI Director, that clarity vanished, replaced by a fog of bureaucratic excuses.

The Flimsy Firewall of “Court Orders”

Raskin cut to the core: if the black book is under your “direct control,” as you vehemently claimed, why—200 days into your tenure—have you not released the names of Epstein’s co-conspirators in the sex trafficking of young women and girls?

Patel’s response was a masterclass in obfuscation:

He initially tried to dismiss the “black book” as merely a “Rolodex” that had already been released—a clear evasion, as Raskin clarified they were talking about the vast amount of material seized by the FBI, not a journalist’s file from five years prior.

He pivoted to an irrelevant defense of the FBI’s general work, claiming 1,500 child predators were arrested this year, completely sidestepping the specific issue of the Epstein files.

Most crucially, he erected a flimsy firewall of alleged “multiple federal court orders,” stating, “I’m not going to break the law to satisfy your curiosity.”

This sudden devotion to obscure legal constraints, which were never a concern when he was a vocal critic, reveals the depth of the hypocrisy. The problem with Patel’s defense is that it creates an entirely new set of unanswered questions:

Which courts, specifically? When Raskin pressed him to name the courts, Patel only vaguely referred to “three separate federal courts.”

What exactly did they limit? Raskin pointed out that the investigatory material collected from 2001 and 2005 was used to successfully prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell. Patel struggled to explain why the same investigatory material—the seized computers, emails, financial records, and file cabinets—was suddenly off-limits for public disclosure now, claiming a limit on “developing new information,” a defense that has nothing to do with releasing existing, seized records.

What does “lawfully permitted” mean? Patel insisted he has released everything he has “direct control over and can lawfully release.” This undefined boundary allows him to hide any inconvenient truth behind an impenetrable legal term.

The Blame Game: Shifting Focus to Others

Unable to defend his reversal, Patel resorted to the predictable tactic of redirecting blame. He desperately pivoted to past administrations, claiming the Obama and Biden administrations “did nothing to look at his work, his pedophile network.” While the past failures of other administrations are relevant to the history of the case, they are entirely irrelevant to the central issue of Patel’s own current conduct and his failure to live up to the promise of transparency he made to the American public.

The exchange concluded with Raskin forcefully reiterating that the director was not keeping his word. Patel’s attempt to use court orders he would not clearly identify to justify his own opacity—an opacity he once called an “evil thing to do”—highlights the terrifying reality of what happens when power shifts an individual’s priorities.

This hearing was about more than a single file cabinet; it was about whether the most powerful individuals in America can rely on institutions to shield them from the consequences of their crimes. Kosh Patel’s performance showed the public that the problem isn’t just the lack of transparency; it is the inconsistent explanations, the shifting stories, and the officials who lose their appetite for full disclosure the moment the political cost of the truth becomes too high. The truth is still buried, and the man who promised to dig it up is now running the shovel.