In Alternate Timeline, Congressmen Ask Hard Questions & Kash Patel Admits the FBI's Protecting Pedophiles
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2025 11:40 pm
“Cross-examination … the surest test of truth and a better security than the oath.” — Francis Wellman, The Art of Cross-Examination
The Way it Happened in this Messed-up Timeline
Trial lawyers suffer the tortures of the damned while watching Congressional hearings, where toothless questioning by Democrats is exceeded only be the complete imbecility of Republican witnesses, both tendencies on full display during the questioning of FBI Director Kash Patel.
He's there to answer why he's sitting on the Epstein files. His answer was that the FBI is still honoring the crooked deal that Epstein's lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis reached with the Department of Justice, through the good offices of corrupt DOJ lawyer Alex Acosta, exercising the privileges of his office for the benefit of Epstein and his co-conspirators, while negotiating for a comfier seat at Kirkland & Ellis.
That's a nice little crack in the armor. But no one busts it open with a series of good questions to expose the obvious to view. As Wellman explains, the point of good cross examination of a perjurer isn't to elicit the truth from the mouth of the witness, but rather, to make it clear that the truth is exactly what the witness is denying or attempting to conceal.
To visualize the alternative questioning below, I applied Wellman's methods to prepare some questions intended to make it clear for Director Patel, as well as the constituents for whose benefit he is being questioned, that the FBI is actively protecting pedophiles by continuing to give effect to the illegal Non-Prosecution Agreement corruptly negotiated by Acosta.
FYI, the Non-Prosecution Agreement was illegal because Acosta violated the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) by formally agreeing with other Kirkland lawyers to keep Epstein's victims and their lawyers from learning that they were about to enter a plea on a sweetheart deal that would give Epstein a wrist-slap jail sentence with home relief that, thanks to the Constitutional protection against double jeopardy, would insulate him from future prosecution. Thus, the victims and their lawyers were totally blindsided, deliberately deprived of their rights under the CVRA. (See my prior discussion of this shameful event in DOJ history -- which will be utterly forgotten now that corruption is business as usual at the Bondi DOJ.)
How it Happened in an Alternate Timeline
I got elected to Congress, and I asked these questions.
Counsel: Director Patel, my questions call for yes or no. If you don’t recall, say “I don’t recall.” If you need counsel, say “I need counsel.” We’ll address each—quickly.
Patel: Understood.
Counsel: The FBI is withholding Epstein-related records in part because of the 2007–08 non-prosecution agreement—the NPA. Yes?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel: The Bureau’s current position papers cite the NPA as a basis to limit disclosures, correct?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel: Six years ago, on February 21, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Marra legally concluded in a binding order that the Government entered into the NPA without conferring with the victims. Yes?
Patel: I don’t recall.
Counsel (showing him the document): Well, take a look at this Exhibit A, a copy of the judge's order, that states: “It is undisputed that the Government entered into a NPA with Epstein without conferring with Petitioners during its negotiation and signing.” You see that? Yes?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel: Same order: “Under the facts of this case, there was a violation of the victims’ rights under the CVRA.” You see that? Yes?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel: And the court criticized the Government for concealing the NPA and misleading victims that prosecution was still possible. You see the words “conceal” and “mislead”? Yes?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel: Exhibit B — the NPA states: “The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record … If the United States receives a FOIA request … it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure.” You see that? Yes?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel:I'll show you Exhibit C, the NPA. You see where it says it extends non-prosecution to “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to -- and there's a list of names here that's been redacted. ”
Patel: Yes.
Counsel:You're a lawyer, right?
Patel:So those people on the list of names that are in the NPA, the ones that have been redacted, they can use this NPA as a get out of jail free card, right?.
Patel: I'd have to talk to counsel.
Counsel:You, a lawyer, need a lawyer to answer a simple question of contract law? You don't know whether a person named in the NPA as a named beneficiary can invoke that contract to protect themselves from prosecution?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel:And as far as the people whose names aren't listed in the NPA except by the description "“any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to ..." that's a potentially unlimited group of people who could invoke this NPA as a shield, right?
Patel:I need counsel.
Counsel:Well, since you can't talk about the perpetrators, the beneficiaries of this NPA, how about the victims, the people who are injured by it. You know that the Eleventh Circuit described the facts as “beyond scandalous,” and concluded that the victims were “left in the dark” and “affirmatively misled” by government attorneys. Yes?
Patel: I need counsel.
Counsel: Exhibit D states: “left in the dark … affirmatively misled.” You see that? Yes?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel: So the Department of Justice kept the NPA secret from the victims, which a federal court held violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and the, and the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged victims were left in the dark and affirmatively misled. And you're still honoring that NPA?
Patel: We are giving it effect.
Counsel: Giving it effect by invoking the NPA here, today, to withhold names and records that would identify potential co-conspirators. Yes?
Patel:We rely on Department guidance.
Counsel: So you say you received guidance from the DOJ to invoke the illegal NPA today before Congress as the reason for not providing the Epstein files? When did you get that, from whom, and why don't you have it here today, since its the basis for your refusal to provide the files.
Patel:I don’t recall.
Counsel: Then your testimony is you’re withholding in reliance on guidance you cannot identify. Yes?
Patel:I need counsel.
Counsel: Understood. We’ll subpoena it.
Counsel: The NPA’s co-conspirator clause expressly protects “any potential co-conspirators.” If the FBI withholds names because of that clause, the effect is to shield potential co-conspirators from exposure. Yes?
Patel: The effect could be that.
Counsel: Not “could.” If the names stay secret, the public and victims cannot identify them. That’s shielding. Yes?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel: Choose one, Director: (1) The FBI is enforcing the secrecy and co-conspirator protections from an agreement the court found was made without conferring and concealed from victims; or (2) The FBI is not enforcing those protections and will produce the names and records. Which? 1 or 2?
Patel: I need counsel.
Counsel: Then your position—today—is you cannot tell the victims or the public whether you are enforcing those protections. Yes?
Patel: Yes.
Counsel: The district court: “violation of the victims’ rights under the CVRA.” True?
Patel: True.
Counsel: The NPA: secrecy and co-conspirator immunity. True?
Patel: True.
Counsel: The FBI relies on that NPA to withhold names and records. True?
Patel: True.
Counsel: Withholding those names shields potential co-conspirators from exposure. True?
Patel: True.
Counsel: Then the FBI is, in effect, enforcing an illegal agreement made in violation of victims’ rights to shield Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile friends from exposure. Yes or no?
Patel:We give it effect according to the guidance we've received.
Counsel: And you came here today, relying on that guidance, provided by a lawyer whose name you don't remember, recorded in a document you don't have at hand. Let me read to you from the NPA again.
“The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record … If the United States receives a FOIA request … it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure.”
Counsel: So the DOJ said that it would tip off Epstein if anyone filed a Freedom of Information Act Request for the NPA?
Patel:They agreed to notify him if they received a FOIA for the NPA.
Counsel: And that was so that he could warn his co-conspirators and send his lawyers like Allen Derschowitz to block any disclosures, correct?
Patel:I don't know.
Counsel: Well you know that Mr. Dershowitz both participated in negotiating the NPA, and is a beneficiary of it -- and he was on the Lolita Express, wasn't he?
Patel: I don't know.
Counsel: How long have you been in this job, Director?
Patel:For several months.
Counsel: Still getting up to speed, huh?
Patel: Next question, please.
Counsel: Now in addition to materials the FBI is not releasing because of the NPA, the Bureau also not releasing information that it deems "not credible," correct?
Patel:Yes, we are following the President's Directive and Attorney General Bondi's directions.
Counsel: The testimony of the child victims has been deemed non-credible, is that correct?
Patel:I don't know.
Counsel: Right, because you haven't actually reviewed the statements of the child witnesses, correct?
Patel: That's true, but other agents have made the credibility assessment.
Counsel: And they found the children to be non-credible, correct?
Patel: Correct.
Counsel: And that was for the same reasons usually invoked in child molestation cases, right? Lack of physical evidence, the child was young and may have mis-remembered innocent events, the accuser is powerful and has good lawyers, and denies the accusation -- those are why child victims are being deemed non-credible?
Patel:Those reasons have often been cited.
Counsel: So the FBI is not a believer in that slogan, "Believe the Children"?
Patel:It's not Bureau policy.
Counsel: And just applying the KISS method here, Keep It Simple, Sir -- by enforcing the illegal NPA and disbelieving the victims, the FBI is protecting pedophiles from prosecution, right?
Patel: I, I don't believe that's true.
Counsel: Well you're certainly not arresting them, are you?
Patel: I don't know that there are any pedophiles ...
Counsel: Might just be a hoax, huh?
Patel: Uh, uh, uh ...
Counsel: Well let's move on. What about Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted federal felon, convicted co-conspirator of Epstein. Is she a credible witness?
Patel: Perhaps.
Counsel: The President thinks she is, doesn't he? That's why he sent his lawyer Todd Blanche to interview her, correct?
Patel:You'd have to ask the President.
Counsel: Well, you have never done that, right?
Patel:I have not.
Counsel: In fact, you've never talked with the President about the Epstein case, correct?
Patel:No.
Counsel: Because he wouldn't know anything about Epstein, would he?
Patel:I don't know.
Counsel: Thank you, no further questions.
If anyone in Congress wants help writing questions for future witnesses, hit me up at CharlesCarreon.com Alternatively, improve this Timeline by drafting me to run for a Congressional seat in blue New Mexico, and I'll go ask the questions myself.