Cash and Swalwell go head to head.

Here’s a clear, factual breakdown of the fiery exchange between Rep. Eric Swalwell and FBI Director Kash Patel during the September 17, 2025 House Judiciary Committee hearing — specifically focused on the Epstein files and accusations about shielding elites:

🔥 What Happened Between Swalwell and Patel

---

🧾 1. Patel Admitted He Hasn’t Reviewed All Epstein Files

Swalwell pressed Patel point-blank on whether, as FBI Director, he had personally reviewed all of the federal government’s documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — widely referred to as the Epstein files. Patel acknowledged he had not personally reviewed all of the material, even though the FBI holds what many consider the central trove of evidence and investigative material.

Swalwell’s point: If you oversee the agency in charge of one of the largest sex trafficking investigations in U.S. history, shouldn’t you have read the entire file?Patel’s reply: He’s been focused on FBI priorities like violent crime reduction, not personally reading every file. 

🔎 2. Repeated Pressure on Trump’s Connection to the Files

Swalwell repeatedly asked whether Patel had ever told Attorney General Pam Bondi that President Donald Trump’s name appeared in the Epstein files — something Democrats say is significant because Trump has disputed being notified about his presence in the files.

Patel refused to answer directly, instead saying he and the AG had “numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files” and would not give a simple yes/no answer.

Swalwell kept pressing, at one point enunciating the question deliberately for clarity, but Patel deflected and even mocked by quipping about spelling the alphabet.

This direct-avoidance intensified accusations that he was concealing something — which Swalwell characterized as “evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.” 

🛑 3. Clash Over Whether Files Are Being Hidden

Swalwell — along with other Democrats on the committee — accused Patel of contributing to a “cover-up” by not releasing more thorough information from the Epstein files. They argued that while the Justice Department had released some material, huge portions remain sealed even beyond what court orders strictly require.

Patel repeatedly responded that the FBI has released “all credible information” that is legally permissible, citing protective orders and court restrictions.

But committee members challenged that claim, pointing out that courts have said much broader portions of the Epstein files (including documents the FBI holds) are not legally barred from public release — especially material not related to grand jury secrecy rules.

📣 4. Heated Language Across the Hearing

The back-and-forth got incendiary:

• Swalwell pressed for straightforward answers and threatened to take Patel’s evasiveness as proof of concealment.

• Patel, in turn, called Swalwell’s career “a disgrace to the American public” and used sharp rhetoric when defending his handling of the FBI.

This shouting match stood out even in a hearing already marked by partisan tension over other issues like alleged politicization of the FBI and personnel purges.

🧠 Why This Matters

The exchange illuminated three larger controversies in U.S. politics around the Epstein case:

1. Transparency vs. secrecy: Democrats argue the public — especially survivors — deserve full disclosure of Epstein-related material; Republicans and the FBI argue legal limits constrain what can be shared.

2. The treatment of high-profile names: Whether President Trump’s name appears in the files and how that was handled is politically explosive — especially since both sides have accused the other of covering up or misrepresenting it.

3. Institutional trust in the FBI: Patel’s testimony became part of a broader debate over whether his leadership politicizes the bureau and curtails accountability — particularly given earlier public statements he made before joining the FBI about releasing the full Epstein files.