Richard Kahn, Jeffrey Epstein's longtime accountant and one of the executors of his estate, testified under oath Wednesday that he had never seen any financial transaction connecting Donald Trump or anyone in his family to Epstein. The closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee marks the fifth witness to say the same thing.
Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., delivered the news to reporters outside the Rayburn Building with the kind of plainness that needs no embellishment:
"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 parenthetical. The Democrats asked the question. They got an answer they didn't want. Five times running.
Comer framed the testimony in the context of the committee's broader investigation into how the federal government handled Epstein's case, according to Fox News.
"That makes the fifth witness now that's testified under oath that they've never seen any involvement by Donald Trump or the family."
Kahn's deposition also shed light on where Epstein's money actually came from. According to Comer, Kahn said he was under the impression Epstein made his money as a tax advisor and financial planner. Comer identified five people who transferred significant sums of money to Epstein:
Trump was not among them. His name didn't appear on a ledger, a wire transfer, or a receipt. Five witnesses have now confirmed that under oath.
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., offered a different spin after the same deposition. He told reporters that a "person who was an accuser of Donald Trump was given a settlement by Jeffrey Epstein's estate." The implication was loud. The substance was thin.
The source material itself notes that such a settlement does not necessarily mean it was regarding Trump. And it got thinner still. A person familiar with the deposition said Kahn's attorneys went back on the record to clarify the issue entirely:
"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' headline moment collapsed before the deposition even ended. The attorneys corrected the record. The supposed link evaporated on contact with actual fact-checking.
Subramanyam also mentioned that "there was another head of state" with financial transactions tied to Epstein, though he declined to say who. A tantalizing claim with no follow-through. Standard fare.
This has become a familiar ritual. The House Oversight Committee deposes a witness. Democrats hunt for a Trump connection. The witness, under oath, confirms none exists. Democrats emerge with carefully worded insinuations that unravel within hours. Reporters carry the insinuation in the headline and bury the correction in paragraph twelve.
Five depositions. Five witnesses. Zero evidence of Trump's involvement. At some point, the absence of evidence after a sustained, motivated search becomes evidence of absence. The committee has now heard from Epstein's accountant, his confidante Ghislaine Maxwell in a prior closed-door session, and others. The financial trail leads to a handful of wealthy clients. It does not lead to Trump.
The left spent years treating the Epstein investigation as a guaranteed path to Trump's doorstep. They demanded transparency. They got it. Now the transparency is inconvenient.
The more productive question has always been the one the committee was chartered to answer: how did the federal government allow a convicted sex offender to operate for as long as he did? How did Epstein's network function? Who enabled it, and which institutions looked the other way?
Those are serious questions. They deserve a serious investigation. But every deposition that fails to produce a Trump connection gets less attention from the same people who once demanded the files be released. The concern was never really about accountability. It was about a political target.
Five witnesses have now testified under oath. The record is building, and it tells a clear story. Just not the one Democrats wanted to hear.
