FBI Director Kash Patel Lies about Deleting 2.7 Terabytes of Epstein Witnesses Data - Sixty-Two Seconds That Shook a Hearing Room

 

Sixty-Two Seconds That Shook a Hearing Room

“Director Patel,” Mrvan said evenly, “where did the 2.7 terabytes of data that went missing from the FBI on October 14, 2025, go?”

APACHE JUNCTION, AZ [IFS] -- December 19, 2025 began like countless other days on Capitol Hill: fluorescent lights, shuffling binders, staffers whispering into phones. The House Oversight Committee convened with little public fanfare, but by mid-morning it would produce one of the most jarring exchanges of the year—an exchange that now sits at the center of a growing controversy over lost evidence, congressional oversight, and trust in federal law enforcement.-KHS

At the witness table sat FBI Director Kash Patel, sworn in just months earlier and already navigating a turbulent tenure. Across from him, seated among the members of Congress, was Representative Frank Mrvan, a Democrat from Indiana known less for theatrics than for methodical questioning. What Mrvan asked sounded almost mundane.

“Director Patel,” Mrvan said evenly, “where did the 2.7 terabytes of data that went missing from the FBI on October 14, 2025, go?”

The room quieted.

Patel did not answer directly.

He spoke instead about “ongoing internal reviews,” “legacy systems,” and “data-migration challenges”—the kind of language familiar to anyone who has watched a federal agency deflect a sensitive technical question. The response was long, polished, and conspicuously non-specific.

Mrvan leaned forward.

“Respectfully,” he said, “that wasn’t my question. I’m asking whether the FBI knows where that data is now.”

Patel paused. Cameras zoomed in. He repeated that investigations were ongoing and that “no conclusions should be drawn prematurely.”

Then came the follow-up.

“Is there a backup of that data?” Mrvan asked.

This time, Patel did not hedge.

“Yes,” he said. “I am 100 percent certain that secure backups exist.”

It was a declarative statement, delivered under oath.

Sixty-two seconds later, the hearing took a turn that few in the room seemed prepared for.

The Document

Mrvan reached into his folder.

“Director Patel,” he said, holding up a printed report, “this is the morning brief from the FBI’s Chief Information Security Officer, dated today. It’s signed by Sarah Chen.”

He read aloud:

‘The 2.7 terabytes of data lost on October 14 were definitively deleted. The deletion was permanent. The data is unrecoverable.’

The word definitively landed with force.

So did unrecoverable.

For a brief moment, Patel appeared genuinely stunned. He asked to see the document. Staffers whispered. The chair attempted to restore order.

The contradiction was now undeniable: either the FBI Director was mistaken under oath—or senior technical leadership was.

Either way, Congress had a problem.

What Was Lost

According to committee staff and internal FBI documentation later reviewed by lawmakers, the missing 2.7 terabytes were not routine administrative files.

They allegedly included:

• Video statements from 147 victims connected to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation

• Phone metadata and call logs tied to 340 individuals identified during earlier probes

• Archived email correspondence associated with high-profile figures whose names have appeared in court filings, civil suits, or investigative journalism over the past decade

Among the names referenced in those materials, according to multiple sources familiar with prior versions of the archive, were internationally known political, financial, and royal figures—including Prince Andrew, former President Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

It is important to note: inclusion in investigative files does not imply criminal guilt. But preservation of evidence is foundational to accountability, whether prosecutions proceed or not.

That is precisely why the loss—or deletion—of such material triggered immediate alarm on Capitol Hill.

Silence Orders and Internal Fallout

As Oversight Committee members pressed for explanations in the days following the hearing, additional allegations emerged from within the Bureau itself.

According to whistleblower disclosures now under review by inspectors general, Patel allegedly instructed senior staff not to discuss the data loss externally and to limit internal documentation to “need-to-know” channels. These claims have not yet been adjudicated, but they are now part of multiple inquiries.

The most serious questions revolve around intent:

• Was the data lost through negligence—or deliberately deleted?

• If backups existed at any point, when were they destroyed?

• And why would the FBI Director publicly assert certainty about recoverability when his own Chief Information Security Officer reported the opposite?

Legal experts say the stakes are enormous.

If a federal official knowingly made false statements under oath, that could constitute perjury.

If evidence tied to active or potential investigations was intentionally destroyed, that could amount to obstruction of justice.

If staff were instructed to conceal the loss, that raises concerns about conspiracy and abuse of authority.

None of these determinations have been made—but the implications are severe enough that multiple committees have now requested document preservation orders.

A Crisis of Trust

Beyond the legal questions lies something harder to quantify but just as damaging: credibility.

The FBI’s authority depends not only on its investigative power, but on public confidence that evidence is preserved impartially—regardless of whose name appears in the files.

Victims’ advocates were among the first to respond publicly.

“These videos weren’t just data,” said one attorney representing several Epstein survivors. “They were testimony. They were proof. Losing them—permanently—is a second violation.”

For Congress, the issue cuts to the core of oversight itself. If lawmakers cannot rely on sworn testimony from agency heads, the constitutional balance between branches erodes.

And for the public, the image is stark: a federal director saying “100 percent certain”—only to be contradicted, moments later, by his own cybersecurity chief.

What Comes Next

As of this writing:

• The House Oversight Committee has issued subpoenas for internal FBI communications related to the October 14 deletion.

• The Department of Justice Inspector General has opened a preliminary review.

• Lawmakers from both parties have called for Sarah Chen to testify publicly under oath.

• No charges have been filed, and Patel has denied wrongdoing through counsel, stating that his testimony reflected “his understanding at the time.”

But one fact is no longer in dispute:

Something critical is gone.

And the explanations for its disappearance do not match.

Sometimes history turns not on grand speeches or sweeping legislation—but on a minute-long exchange, a single document, and a contradiction too stark to explain away.

December 19, 2025 may be remembered as one of those moments.

- 30 -