Takeaways from FBI Director Kash Patel’s testimony on Jeffrey Epstein

FBI Director Kash Patel this week became the first prominent Justice Department official to testify under oath since the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files blew up in its face.

While Epstein was an occasional subplot during Patel’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, it was a huge focus of his appearance in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

The hearing got very heated at times as Democrats decided to go with a scorched-earth approach and Patel responded in kind, leading to several shouting matches.

After one Democrat said that the courts had called “bullsh*t” on the administration’s strategy to try and get grand jury testimony unsealed, Patel ultimately responded, “I’m going to borrow your terminology and call bullsh*t on your entire career in Congress because you’ve been a disgrace to the American people.”

At another point, Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington pressed Patel repeatedly on whether he had ever met with Epstein’s victims. The director again didn’t answer directly, eventually saying, “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.”

Here’s what to know from Patel’s testimony on Epstein:

Patel was repeatedly evasive on Trump

The director was repeatedly evasive when the subject turned to President Donald Trump’s proximity to the files.

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California asked Patel no fewer than nine times whether he had told Attorney General Pam Bondi that Trump’s name appeared in the Epstein files. Each time Patel declined to directly answer the question.

He instead said there had been many conversations about the files and noted the administration has released some documents with Trump’s name in them. He later criticized Swalwell for not focusing more on crime in his home state. But he never answered the question.

The question of how Trump was informed he was in the files is a significant one. Trump initially falsely denied he was told he was in the files, but we later learned Bondi had told him in May that he was. It was around this time that the administration began downplaying what the files might reveal.

In another exchange, Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California asked Patel whether Prince Andrew’s and Trump’s names were on an Epstein client list. The DOJ has said there is no client list, but instead of citing that denial, Patel instead responded that the FBI had already released an index of names.

Vouched for Trump on one key point

But Patel was willing to address Trump’s proximity to Epstein in another way – in a way beneficial to the president.

When Lieu asked him if there were any “photos of Trump with girls of an uncertain age,” Patel responded, “No.”

But when pressed on how he knew that, Patel suggested it wasn’t from his own review.

“Because that information would have been brought to light by multiple administrations and FBI investigators over the course of the last 20 years,” Patel said.

Trump has likewise argued that if there was anything bad in the files that the Biden administration would have used it against him.

In fact, it’s not normal for administrations or the FBI to release derogatory information about people who haven’t been charged with crimes. As a counterpoint, Lieu noted that we only recently learned about the alleged birthday letter Trump wrote Epstein for his 50^th birthday in 2003.

Patel was cautious when asked about other Epstein trafficking victims

The big question most people have about Epstein is whether there is any evidence he trafficked girls or women to other men.

A few answers Patel gave on that subject are worth reflecting on.

He seemed to suggest it was possible Epstein had done so, but that he couldn’t say so definitively because there was no credible evidence of it and/or because of the terms of a non-prosecution agreement Epstein reached with US attorney Alex Acosta in the late 2000s.

On Tuesday, he said there was “no credible information” Epstein had trafficked victims to other men.

But he caveated that by saying it was based on “the information that we have.” He also made a point to cite how that non-prosecution agreement limited the investigation and what he was “able to speak to publicly.”

On Wednesday, Patel was asked a similar question. He emphasized that he wasn’t ruling out the possibility.

“Let me make something crystal clear: I never said Jeffrey Epstein didn’t traffic other people, other women, and there are not other victims,” Patel said. “This is the investigation we were given from 2006, ’07, and ‘08, and the search warrants from 2006, ‘07, and ‘08. That’s what we’re working with.”

Later in the hearing, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky noted that Epstein’s victims have alleged Epstein trafficked victims to at least 20 men.

Ultimately, Patel suggested the information was deemed not credible enough by prosecutors and suggested he wouldn’t share it.

“We are also not in the habit of releasing incredible information,” Patel said. “That’s not what we do, but multiple authorities have looked at the entirety of what we have.”

Answers like these emphasize how difficult it could be to satisfy those who want full disclosure and suspect there’s more that lies beneath the surface. And, of course, Patel was once among those who alleged a massive coverup.

Democrats are going big on this issue

One thing Wednesday’s hearing made abundantly clear: Democrats intend to push this issue long and hard.

One of the dilemmas in these hearings is there are often many subjects lawmakers want to ask about, and you only get these top officials testifying every once in a while. Patel’s much-criticized handling of the manhunt for Charlie Kirk’s assassin last week could have been fodder, too.

But after Senate Democrats largely glossed over the Epstein issue Tuesday, House Democrats focused on it intently. Virtually all of them asked about it, and they seemed to have a plan to touch on many different facets of the issue.

Polling suggests Republican voters are more critical of the administration’s handling of the Epstein files than any other issue, with large numbers of them believing the government is still hiding key information. And the House is also a central battleground, given it’s where Massie’s threat of a discharge petition is forcing GOP leaders’ and the administration’s hand in turning over documents.

(That discharge petition could reach the crucial 218-vote threshold next week to force the release of the files, after a special election in Arizona that the Democrat is expected to win.)

Their focus on pressing Patel over and over again led to a number of tense scenes in which Patel responded by insulting the lawmakers. That might appeal to Trump, who likes his officials to be combative in their testimony. But there’s a real question about whether that’s what the American people want to see, especially given how skeptical they’ve been of the administration’s handling of this subject.

A particularly flippant moment

And one moment stands out on that front. It came when Patel, rather remarkably, decided to commit to an investigation in real time.

Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida noted that Trump has denied the legitimacy of the Epstein birthday letter signed in Trump’s name. But the letter was turned over by Epstein’s estate.

So Moskowitz asked if the FBI would investigate Epstein’s estate for furnishing an allegedly “fake document with the president’s signature” linking Trump to Epstein.

Moskowitz and many others are obviously skeptical of Trump’s denials, given Trump’s false claims about the birthday letter. So the idea was to demonstrate that even the FBI didn’t take Trump’s denials seriously.

Patel at first downplayed the idea, saying, “On what basis?”

Moskowitz repeated that Trump was basically claiming Epstein’s estate released a fake document that made Trump look bad.

And quickly, Patel suddenly agreed to investigate.

“Sure, I’ll do it,” he said.

That Patel so quickly relented – however seriously he intends to actually investigate – spoke to how much pressure has been brought to bear.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com