Goldman Presses Patel on Epstein Files, Exposing Cracks in FBI’s Transparency Defense
A heated congressional exchange over the Jeffrey Epstein files has raised new doubts about whether the FBI is withholding information by choice rather than legal necessity. When Congressman Dan Goldman asked straightforward questions, FBI Director Kash Patel struggled to provide clear, consistent answers—prompting accusations that the transparency narrative is unraveling.
Goldman began with a simple but consequential question: does Donald Trump appear anywhere in the Epstein files? Patel responded that all names have been released where “legally allowed,” immediately invoking court orders and legal restrictions. But Goldman’s follow-up focused on precision—exactly which laws prohibit which disclosures.
The distinction matters. Grand jury testimony is protected under Rule 6E, but Goldman carefully separated that from other categories such as search warrant materials, photographs, videos, and FBI witness interview reports known as 302s. Those records are not automatically sealed forever and are often released with redactions after court review.
As a former prosecutor, Goldman explained that the Department of Justice routinely goes back to court to unseal or narrow protective orders. Patel even acknowledged this process when discussing the release of grand jury transcripts, making Goldman’s next question unavoidable: why hasn’t the FBI sought similar court approval to release other Epstein-related records?
Patel repeatedly pivoted to graphic child sexual abuse material, insisting it would never be released. Goldman did not dispute that point. Instead, he refocused on materials involving third parties, facilitators, and witness statements that could be disclosed while protecting victims’ identities.
The refusal to engage with that distinction created a credibility problem. Transparency, Goldman argued, is not all or nothing. It requires clearly identifying which court orders apply, why they cannot be challenged, and whether the agency has even tried to do so. Vague appeals to secrecy only deepen public suspicion.
The exchange grew more serious when Goldman accused Patel of “hiding the Epstein files” and participating in a coverup. That accusation did not arise from theatrics, but from repeated non-answers to narrowly tailored questions about process, authority, and effort.
At stake is more than political conflict. Epstein’s victims were promised accountability and transparency, yet some have reportedly sought responses from the FBI without success. For survivors, delays and deflections feel less like legal caution and more like abandonment. The hearing underscored a broader truth: public trust in justice institutions is earned not through assurances, but by showing the work behind the decisions.
