ouse investigators examining the federal government’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case heard new testimony this week that adds another piece to the puzzle — and once again, it doesn’t point toward President Donald Trump.
According to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, longtime Epstein accountant Richard Kahn testified under oath that he never saw any financial transactions involving Trump or members of his family. Kahn, who served as one of the executors of Epstein’s estate, was deposed behind closed doors as part of the committee’s ongoing investigation.
Comer told reporters that Democrats themselves raised the question during the deposition. Kahn’s response, he said, was straightforward.
“Mr. Kahn testified under oath that he had never seen any type of transaction to Trump or anyone in his family,” Comer explained. “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 witnesses, all under oath, all saying the same thing. Not exactly the narrative some people were hoping for — but facts do tend to get stubborn like that.
Kahn did confirm that Epstein received substantial sums of money from several wealthy individuals during his career as a financial adviser. According to Comer, the accountant said he believed Epstein made his money primarily through tax advising and financial planning.
Among the people who reportedly transferred significant funds to Epstein were former Victoria’s Secret CEO Les Wexner, hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, businessman Steven Sinofsky, members of the Rothschild family, and investor Leon Black. Epstein had previously been known to serve as a financial adviser to each of them.
Meanwhile, Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, a Democrat from Virginia, offered a slightly different interpretation of part of the testimony. Subramanyam told reporters that Kahn mentioned a situation in which someone who had accused Trump was later given a settlement by Epstein’s estate.
However, that statement quickly became the subject of clarification. According to a person familiar with the deposition, the reference was misunderstood. When Democratic lawmakers asked Kahn about an individual referred to as “Jane Doe 4,” they were apparently talking about someone Kahn and his legal team had never heard of. His attorneys later returned to the record to correct the confusion.
In other words, the supposed link wasn’t a link at all.
Trump and Epstein were known to have been acquaintances years ago, though the relationship ended well before Epstein’s first federal investigation. Despite years of speculation and endless headlines, Trump has not been implicated in any wrongdoing connected to Epstein’s crimes.
Subramanyam also claimed that Kahn referenced another unnamed head of state who may have had financial dealings with Epstein, though no further details were provided.
As the investigation continues, testimony like this is adding clarity to a case that has been surrounded by rumors, speculation, and more than a few political narratives. And if there’s one thing these hearings keep reminding everyone, it’s that sworn testimony has a way of cutting through the noise — even when the result isn’t the story some people expected.
