Recently released FBI emails from 2019 indicate that federal investigators were actively pursuing 10 potential co-conspirators in the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking case—evidence that appears to conflict with sworn testimony later given by Kash Patel.
An internal FBI email dated July 9, 2019, shows agents coordinating grand jury subpoenas for individuals identified as possible co-conspirators, following Epstein’s arrest earlier that summer. The message describes a rapid, multi-state effort involving FBI teams and subpoenas served in Florida, New York, Boston, Connecticut, and North Carolina, with additional leads still being tracked. One entry even flags a “wealthy businessman in Ohio” as an active target of the investigation.
This account stands in sharp contrast to Patel’s testimony before the Senate on Sept. 16, 2025. Under oath, Patel said the Epstein files contained “no credible information” suggesting Epstein trafficked victims to anyone else, asserting that Epstein acted alone. “There is no credible information. None,” he told senators. “If there were, I would bring the case yesterday.”
But the newly surfaced email suggests investigators believed there was sufficient factual basis to seek grand jury subpoenas—steps typically taken when prosecutors think testimony may be relevant to a criminal inquiry. The FBI’s human trafficking unit, according to the document, was not merely speculating; it was actively executing investigative actions.
Ultimately, only Ghislaine Maxwell was charged in connection with Epstein’s crimes. Supporters of Patel argue that leads and subpoenas do not equate to proof of guilt and that Patel may have relied on summaries rather than raw investigative communications. Still, questions persist about why the other nine individuals were never charged.
On social media, some users speculate that those individuals avoided prosecution due to their influence or connections. One commenter alleged that the political leadership at the time would not allow powerful figures to face consequences.
Others have gone further, calling for scrutiny of Patel’s sworn statements and raising the possibility of perjury. For now, the release of the 2019 FBI email has reignited debate over what investigators knew, what was pursued, and why so few cases ultimately moved forward.
