Ted Lieu CRUSHES Kash Patel in Just 67 Seconds With Explosive Epstein Tape — Patel Couldn't Say No

#morningjoe #uspolitics #whitehousetoday #epsteinfiles #fbi #Epsteintape What you just heard is the part of the hearing Lieu came to build. Not the client list. Not the birthday message. Not the white binders. The photographs. Representative Ted Lieu of California arrived at this hearing with a New York Times article dated July 8th, 2019, a video clip from journalist Michael Wolff, and a sequence of questions designed to do one specific thing. Establish, on the official congressional record, what the FBI found, what the FBI does not know, and what the FBI Director could not answer when asked directly. Lieu confirmed that the FBI searched Epstein's Manhattan residence in 2019. He confirmed the FBI found a safe. He confirmed the safe contained nude photographs of girls. On each of those three facts, Patel said the same thing. I'll accept your representation. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation accepted a congressman's characterization of what his own agency found in a search his agency conducted. Then Lieu played the Wolff clip. A journalist who has conducted approximately one hundred hours of recorded Epstein interviews described specific photographs — Polaroids, spread like playing cards — allegedly showing Donald Trump with girls of an uncertain age at Epstein's Palm Beach property. Lieu asked Patel directly. Are there any photos showing Donald Trump with girls of an uncertain age? Patel said no. Lieu asked how he knew. Patel said that information would have been brought to light by multiple administrations and FBI investigators over the course of the last twenty years. Lieu produced a documented counterexample immediately. The birthday message. A document linking Trump to Epstein that nobody knew existed until the Wall Street Journal disclosed it — and that came to Congress not from the FBI, but from the Epstein estate. Patel said: you raise a great point. Once that acknowledgement was in the record, the confidence of the original no rested on a foundation Patel himself had just acknowledged was incomplete. Lieu then asked whether the FBI had subpoenaed Wolff's approximately one hundred hours of Epstein recordings. Patel said he did not know. He asked whether Patel had personally spoken with Wolff. Patel said he had not. He asked whether the FBI had subpoenaed the Epstein estate. Patel said the estate had no obligation to comply even with a subpoena. Lieu stopped him. That is just false. You are the FBI. You can subpoena the information from the estate. He was correct on the law. Patel said okay. He did not correct himself. Then came the client list. Lieu asked whether Prince Andrew was on it. Patel pointed to the index. Lieu asked again. Patel pointed to the index again. Lieu asked whether Donald Trump was on the list. Patel said the index would speak for itself. Three consecutive deflections to a document instead of a yes or no. The transcript now contains every question Lieu asked. It contains the three I'll accept your representation answers about Patel's own agency's evidence. It contains the no about the photographs and the acknowledgement that undermined it. It contains the legally inaccurate statement about the estate. It contains three deflections to an index when asked two direct questions about two specific names. It contains the silence where Patel could have said I have personally reviewed the photographic evidence from the Manhattan residence and no images matching that description exist — and chose not to. Was Ted Lieu running real oversight — methodically exposing the gap between a director's public confidence and the evidentiary foundation beneath it? Or was he using an unverified journalist's account to imply something about the president of the United States that no court, no investigation, and no official record has established? Was Kash Patel giving the only responsible institutional answer available — deferring appropriately to the bureau's professional review and protecting the integrity of sensitive materials? Or was he delivering procedural deflections that preserved his public statement while avoiding the personal accountability that statement required? Two different stories. Same hearing. Same official record. Tell us in the comments which version you walked away believing. 🔔 Subscribe — the record contains the answer he gave. And the one he didn't. ⚠️ Disclaimer: This video provides commentary and analysis for educational and informational purposes. All content is based on publicly available congressional testimony. We encourage viewers to research independently and form their own conclusions. #msnbcbreakingnews #kashpatel #tedlieu #thelastword #uspolitics #breakingnews news #msnbclive #politicstoday #americanews #election2026