Jeffrey Epstein's longtime accountant told the House Oversight Committee under oath that he never witnessed any financial transaction between Epstein and President Donald Trump or anyone in Trump's family. Five witnesses have now testified to the same thing.
Richard Kahn, one of the executors of Epstein's estate, sat for a closed-door deposition on Wednesday at the Rayburn Building as part of the committee's investigation into how the federal government handled Epstein's case. Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., spoke to reporters afterward and delivered the headline Democrats clearly did not want.
"Mr. Kahn testified under oath that — because the Democrats asked this question — that he had never seen any type of transaction to Trump or anyone in his family."
Note the detail Comer tucked in there: "because the Democrats asked this question." They went fishing. They came back empty.
Comer made a point of tallying the results so far.
"That makes the fifth witness now that's testified under oath that they've never seen any involvement by Donald Trump or the family."
Five depositions. Five witnesses. Five times under oath. Zero evidence connecting the president to Epstein's financial network. At some point, the absence of evidence stops being a gap and starts being the answer. Democrats on the committee keep asking the same question, and the witnesses keep giving the same response. The investigation is doing exactly what investigations are supposed to do: follow facts wherever they lead, even when the destination disappoints one side of the aisle.
Kahn did confirm that five people paid significant sums of money to Epstein. Comer identified them:
Fox News reported that according to Comer, Kahn said Epstein was "under the impression" he made his money as a tax advisor and financial planner. Epstein was known to have served as a financial advisor for each of the five.
That list is where the real story lives. A convicted sex trafficker embedded himself among billionaires and dynastic wealth, and the question Congress should be pressing is how federal investigators allowed that arrangement to persist for as long as it did. The committee's mandate is to examine how the government handled Epstein's case, and the financial map Kahn sketched out provides far more meaningful terrain than the Trump-focused fishing expeditions Democrats keep launching.
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., offered reporters a different version of the deposition. He claimed Kahn testified that a "person who was an accuser of Donald Trump was given a settlement by Jeffrey Epstein's estate."
That framing lasted about as long as you'd expect. A person familiar with the deposition said Kahn's attorneys went back on the record to correct the claim.
"Earlier testimony from Kahn about the Trump accuser receiving a settlement from the Epstein estate is incorrect. When the Democrats asked about Jane Doe 4, they were talking about someone else. Kahn's attorneys went back on the record to clarify that the person the Dems thought was Jane Doe 4 was not an individual they had ever heard of."
So the Democrats' dramatic reveal required an immediate correction from the witness's own legal team. This is what happens when you build a question around a conclusion you've already reached. The facts refuse to cooperate.
Subramanyam also mentioned that "another head of state" came up during testimony as having financial transactions with Epstein. He did not elaborate on who that was. If that detail matters, and it likely does, it deserves the same scrutiny the committee has given every other lead. Names matter more than innuendo.
The Oversight Committee has now deposed multiple figures connected to Epstein's world, including Ghislaine Maxwell, in a closed-door session in February. Each round produces the same dynamic: Democrats arrive hoping to build a case against the president, and each round, the testimony fails to deliver one.
Five witnesses under oath is not a technicality. It is a consistent, repeated, sworn record. If even one of those witnesses had produced a receipt, a wire transfer, or a single documented connection, it would have led every newscast in the country. Instead, silence from the evidence and noise from the Democrats.
The serious questions in this investigation have always been about institutional failure. How did Epstein operate for so long? How did a man with a prior federal conviction for sex offenses maintain a financial advisory empire among the world's wealthiest people? Which prosecutors, which agencies, which officials looked the other way?
Those are the questions that protect future victims. Those are the questions that expose the rot. But they require following the evidence rather than a political obsession.
Five witnesses have now testified. The record speaks for itself.
