AgDev01 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

AgDev01 said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

If the former, please give SPECIFIC examples of where he "lie(d) and cover(ed)up" and did "unethical actions" for Trump. Also, give examples of the bolded sentence.

---

How about testifying before congress that there is no credible evidence that anyone else was involved in Epstein's Sex Trafficking operations aside from Epstein and Maxwell?

That has 100% been proved to be a lie.

---

Can you PLEASE pull up the exact quote/source. I'm not engaging in argument over YOUR assertions. Not to mention accepting your belief of "proved." Proved how?

---

I, too, would like to see this proof.

My guess is the answer will be that they're hiding the proof by not releasing it, but it's still 100% proven...

---

Scroll up. the video of his testimony is posted.

They did try to hide who they were by illegally redacting the document that was released but a few have since been named.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-names-3-people-fbi-once-called-jeffrey-epstein-co-conspirators-rcna258335

Let's also not forget that the Frist Lady just said in her remarks there were others involved in their activities - "Now is the time for Congress to act. Epstein was not alone."

---

And my prediction was correct...

They're hiding the proof.

Where the **** were you from 01/20/2021-01/20/2025 when the Biden administration had all this same information and could have released it and PROVED the assertion prior to Patel taking office?

AgDev01 said:

---

I was watching and listening to Bongino and Patel as they promised over and over that they would seek justice once Trump was elected.

Now do you want to address the claim and evidence i posted or do you want to continue to deflect?

Stating they were hiding it is a fact. They have since unredacted portions file.

I posted a video of Patel making the claim. I posted a link to an article with the current acting AG admitting there were co-conspirators. I quoted the first lady admitting there were others. What other proof that he lied do you want?

---

So, who were the co-conspirators?

One of your articles stated this:

Quote:

---

Justice Department releases names of 3 people the FBI once called Jeffrey Epstein 'co-conspirators'

---

Which means they don't now call them that...perhaps that's because of lack of evidence?

Quote:

---

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded in a post of his own, saying: "The document you cite has numerous victim names. We have just unredacted Les Wexner's name from this document, but his name already appears in the files thousands of times. DOJ is hiding nothing."

The newly released version of the 2019 document shows eight people are listed as co-conspirators, including four whose names are not redacted: Wexner, the former CEO of Victoria's Secret; Lesley Groff, Epstein's longtime secretary; the late modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel; and Ghislaine Maxwell, the only person who was charged in connection with Epstein. She was convicted of sex trafficking charges and is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

---

AgDev01 said:

---

Quote:

---

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded in a post of his own, saying: "The document you cite has numerous victim names. We have just unredacted Les Wexner's name from this document, but his name already appears in the files thousands of times. DOJ is hiding nothing."

The newly released version of the 2019 document shows eight people are listed as co-conspirators, including four whose names are not redacted: Wexner, the former CEO of Victoria's Secret; Lesley Groff, Epstein's longtime secretary; the late modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel; and Ghislaine Maxwell, the only person who was charged in connection with Epstein. She was convicted of sex trafficking charges and is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

---

---

And, why were none of those people charged?

Remember, since that was in 2019, you ALSO had 4 years of Biden after that. Are you suggesting the Biden administration wanted to protect pedophiles?

Could it be because of lack of evidence?

If you could click a link you would see that Brunel was arrested and charged for sex trafficking in France in 2019. he then later died in prison in 2022. You have a few hundred posts in the Epstein thread, one would think you would actually have read some of the things posted in it.

Why Wexner or his secretary weren't arrested, i don't know. I do know that the FBI thought there was enough evidence to list them as co-conspirators. I also know Patel stated that there was no credible evidence, which this is, not that there wasn't enough evidence to arrest anyone.

Yes the Biden administration, along with the Bush and Obama administrations all protected these folks to some extent. they are all guilty.

Ag with kids said:

---

AgDev01 said:

---

Quote:

---

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded in a post of his own, saying: "The document you cite has numerous victim names. We have just unredacted Les Wexner's name from this document, but his name already appears in the files thousands of times. DOJ is hiding nothing."

The newly released version of the 2019 document shows eight people are listed as co-conspirators, including four whose names are not redacted: Wexner, the former CEO of Victoria's Secret; Lesley Groff, Epstein's longtime secretary; the late modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel; and Ghislaine Maxwell, the only person who was charged in connection with Epstein. She was convicted of sex trafficking charges and is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

---

---

And, why were none of those people charged?

Remember, since that was in 2019, you ALSO had 4 years of Biden after that. Are you suggesting the Biden administration wanted to protect pedophiles?

Could it be because of lack of evidence?

---

No Biden and company didn't simply protect pedophiles. If it were that simple the perpetrators would have already been hanged like any other average civilian who breaks the law.

Biden, Trump, and on down the line are protecting people and systems that run our Country. Some of whom are pedophile psychopaths.

The FBI, DOJ, etc didn't make an effort to gather much evidence. They didn't interview Epstein Island employees, didn't interview/question some of the victims (many of which have claimed to proactively been reaching out to the DOJ), didn't even search Epsteins ranch, and God knows what else.

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

The Atlantic "published these statements with actual malice," the suit states.
"Actual malice" is the high legal standard that public figures must meet to prevail in a defamation case. It means that the author either knew a claim was false or displayed "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Defamation cases often fall apart because the plaintiffs fail to prove "actual malice."

---

I will go with the Atlantic on this one as Kash likely does not want a full vetting of his actions. The Trump WSJ suit was dismissed for no "actual malice" basis and that is probably what will happen here as well.

My favorite part of that article, by the way, was Patel forgetting how to login to his computer and immediately assuming he had been canned.

---

I would argue that "habitual drunk" is with malice.

---

Calling someone a "habitual drunk" is an opinion. Thus, not defamatory. And that's not what "actual malice" means.

---

Bob IS a habitual drunk != Bob appears to be a habitual drunk.

The first is a statement of fact. Especially since they are backing it up with supposed information from "sources".

The second is an opinion.

---

Explain how you prove someone is a perpetual drunk. I don't think you can, because one person's perpetual drunk is another person's someone who likes to have a martini at lunch.

DeschutesAg said:

---

Republicans Chris Wray and Robert Mueller were serious, proven professionals with integrity and credibility who earned the respect of the courts, Congress, US law enforcement, our US natsec and intelligence community, both major political parties, and international law enforcement. That is why they were excellent choices to be FBI Directors.

In comparison, Kash Patel is a clownshow. Just like Noem, Bongino, and Bondi, Kash Patel is another corrupt, inept, incompetent embarrassment who was chosen based on his loyalty to Trump and his willingness to lie and coverup and do unethical actions for Trump. He is an amateurish, unstable, unethical, bumbling internet podshow act with no credibility.

If Senate Rs truly want Trump to succeed, they should be more stringent and selective in the confirmation process. Sometimes the best way a Senator majority can serve a President from their own party is to tell him "no".

---

Is this satire?

What's he gonna do if he wins?

I have a funny feeling when discovery hits he drops this, Trump is about to can him.

Burpelson said:

---

Trump is about to can him.

---

been hearing this since 2025. any day now.

Burpelson said:

---

I have a funny feeling when discovery hits he drops this, Trump is about to can him.

---

Highly unlikely it makes it that far.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

The Atlantic "published these statements with actual malice," the suit states.
"Actual malice" is the high legal standard that public figures must meet to prevail in a defamation case. It means that the author either knew a claim was false or displayed "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Defamation cases often fall apart because the plaintiffs fail to prove "actual malice."

---

I will go with the Atlantic on this one as Kash likely does not want a full vetting of his actions. The Trump WSJ suit was dismissed for no "actual malice" basis and that is probably what will happen here as well.

My favorite part of that article, by the way, was Patel forgetting how to login to his computer and immediately assuming he had been canned.

---

I would argue that "habitual drunk" is with malice.

---

Calling someone a "habitual drunk" is an opinion. Thus, not defamatory. And that's not what "actual malice" means.

---

Bob IS a habitual drunk != Bob appears to be a habitual drunk.

The first is a statement of fact. Especially since they are backing it up with supposed information from "sources".

The second is an opinion.

---

Explain how you prove someone is a perpetual drunk. I don't think you can, because one person's perpetual drunk is another person's someone who likes to have a martini at lunch.

---

In the article the following is quoted:

"is a habitual drunk, unable to perform the duties of his office, is a threat to public safety, is vulnerable to foreign coercion, has violated DOJ ethics rules, is unreachable in emergencies, has required the deployment of 'breaching equipment' to extract him from locked rooms, allows alcohol to influence his public statements about criminal investigations, and behaves erratically in a manner that compromises national security."


"Habitual drunk" is not a value judgment. There are objective indicators - behavior, witness testimony, etc... Adding the word "habitual" doesn't soften the claim - it sharpens it into a more specific factual assertion. A reasonable person hearing "he is a habitual drunk" wouldn't think "well, that's just someone's subjective take." They would understand it as an assertion that this person regularly drinks to the point of intoxication.

Other statements of fact assuming that quote is accurate:

• "has violated DOJ ethics rules"
• "is unreachable in emergencies"
• "has required the deployment of 'breaching equipment' to extract him from locked rooms"

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Lying about the Epstein files.
Trying to obstruct efforts of the public to track where he and his girlfriend are jetting off to all the time on our dime.
He announced a thwarted terror attack on Halloween, but the investigation was still ongoing and the perps hadn't been arrested yet.
Filing a very stupid defamation lawsuit.

---

Could you give links to these?

---

He said he has no credible evidence that Epstein trafficked girls to anyone else. That's complete bull***** Sarah Ransome testified under oath that she was trafficked to friends of him.

He tried to get his plane delisted from FlightAware. Fortunately others have paid extra to get the flight tracking information.

BREAKING: FBI Director Kash Patel has asked to halt public tracking of government-owned jet after reportedly using it last week to fly out and watch his girlfriend perform at a wrestling event. pic.twitter.com/Lfaae87Lno

— The General (@GeneralMCNews) November 1, 2025

---

Government waste is BADASS, as long as it triggers the libs.

You think our humble civil servants using private jets to attend sporting events is government waste? We don't want these guys to have a lil fun and decompress time after all the great work they do to serve us and our country?!

Need more like Hegseth and Patel!

The New York Times has come out and said they can't find one single person to corroborate anything. The Atlantic is saying. And now the Atlantic has changed the headline.

Quote:

---

The New York Times has come out and said they can't find one single person to corroborate anything. The Atlantic is saying. And now the Atlantic has changed the headline.

---

The title is still the same . . . and I would be impressed if the NY Times actually did this. Do you have a link to this?

jt2hunt said:

---

The New York Times has come out and said they can't find one single person to corroborate anything. The Atlantic is saying. And now the Atlantic has changed the headline.

---

It's called A/B heading, and sites do it all the time to test what headline gets better social media interaction.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

The New York Times has come out and said they can't find one single person to corroborate anything. The Atlantic is saying. And now the Atlantic has changed the headline.

---

The title is still the same . . . and I would be impressed if the NY Times actually did this. Do you have a link to this?

---

It's Reuters, not NYT. https://www.tbsnews.net/worldbiz/usa/fbi-director-kash-patel-sues-atlantic-claiming-false-reporting-about-drinking-absences?amp

Thanks, I had only seen the online version of the Atlantic article which ran with the latest headline.

J. Edgar Boozer is a Mount Rushmore nickname, regardless of your political affiliation.

In case you are an idiot, ,THIS POST IS MEANT TO BE A JOKE

BREAKING: Kash Patel is reportedly threatening to sue anyone who calls him “J. Edgar Boozer.”

— The Halfway Post (@HalfwayPost) April 21, 2026

I don't care about any of this. If a leftist propaganda machine is reporting anything with un-named sources, it's all bull***** Take your breathless pearl clutching elsewhere

Was warned not to bring up history. Don't need the permaban

Ag87H2O said:

---

"Fitzpatrick wrote that she interviewed "more than two dozen people" about Patel's conduct, "including current and former FBI officials, staff at law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, hospitality-industry workers, members of Congress, political operatives, lobbyists, and former advisers."

"The sources spoke on condition of anonymity ..."

Odds are that every one of them is a deep state Democrat or a RINO (but I repeat myself) with an axe to grind. Legacy media loves to hide behind the cloak of anonymity to cover for their lack of actual reporting skills. It's almost a certainty that this is made up BS designed to add to the anti-Trump narrative.

---

100%! These "sources" are bogus or dem operatives. The Atlantic will settle before they embarrass themselves further.

If you believe that you might be the most dense person on the site!

Glad I bought new tennis shoes today, got all the socks here....

Quote:

---

Where the **** were you from 01/20/2021-01/20/2025 when the Biden administration had all this same information and could have released it and PROVED the assertion prior to Patel taking office?

---

A previous administration being terrible is not relevant (nor is it exculpatory) to the current administration being terrible. They are utterly unrelated.

Did not know he was working other defamation cases.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/21/kash-patel-fbi-defamation-lawsuit-figliuzzi-dismissed.html

Quote:

---

A federal judge in Houston on Tuesday dismissed a 2025 lawsuit by FBI Director Kash Patel that alleged he was defamed by former FBI official Frank Figliuizzi, who had said Patel has "been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover building."

The lawsuit is not related to the new defamation lawsuit that Patel filed Monday against The Atlantic magazine over an article that alleged he has abused alcohol.

---

Seems Patel has skin thinner than tissue paper.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems Patel has skin thinner than tissue paper.

---

Well, if *******s were publicly telling the world that YOU were a ****ty employee and lied and were a drunk and you completely were failing all your job duties, I assume you'd just go NAH...

Even when every newspaper and news organization posted those allegations to the world.

Because you've got thick skin...